CHAPTER FOUR - FRASER HOUSE EVOLUTION AS
AN INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE
CHAPTER FOUR - FRASER HOUSE EVOLUTION AS AN
INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE A SOCIAL MODEL OF MENTAL DIS-EASE AND CHANGE TO BEING
WELL Assuming A Social Basis Of Mental Illness LAYOUT, LOCALITY, AND CULTURAL LOCALITY Locality As Connexion To Place And Connexity With Place Aboriginal and Islander Patients Fraser House As Therapeutic Community The Far-From-Equilibrium Learning Organization Socio-Medicine For Social Cohesion - Everyday Life
Milieu Therapy Handbooks On Fraser House Structure And Process SELF-GOVERNANCE AND OTHER RECONSTITUTING PROCESSES The Resocializing Program – Using Governance Therapy Patient Treatment And Training The Domiciliary Care Committee The Outpatients, Relatives And Friends Committee Constituting Rules And Constitutions The Roles of the Patient Committees The Canteen And The Little Red Van Saying ‘No’ And Undercontrolled Auditors DIAGRAMS DRAWINGS Drawing 1 The metaphorical normal middle FIGURES Figure 1 Categories in which Neville sought to have
equal numbers of
Patients PHOTOS Photo 1 Neville and nurse at Fraser House Photo 3 Fraser House along Keyline where the convex
curve becomes concave Photo 4 One Wing of the Fraser House Dorms Photo 5 Allocating the job to those who can’t do it SOCIOGRAMS ORIENTATING
This
Chapter is the first of four on Fraser House and commences with Neville’s
adaptation of his father’s Keyline to Cultural Keyline within the context of
evolving Fraser House, a psychiatric unit that opened in 1959 within North
Ryde Hospital in Sydney, NSW. The Unit’s processes assuming a social basis of
mental illness, and Fraser House locality, cultural locality, layout and
sourcing of patients are discussed. An overview is given of the Unit’s milieu
and Neville’s processes for evolving it as a therapeutic community. The
Chapter concludes with a description of the Re-socializing Program entailing
patient self-governance and law/rule making via patient-based committees. In
the forward of Clark and Yeomans’ book about Fraser House, Maxwell Jones, the pioneer
of therapeutic communities in the United Kingdom wrote, ‘Throughout the book
is the constant awareness that, given such a carefully worked-out structure,
evolution is an inevitable
consequence’ (Clark and Yeomans 1969) (my italics). The reasons for
this comment by Jones about Fraser House are discussed in the next
four chapters. A SOCIAL
MODEL OF MENTAL DIS-EASE AND CHANGE TO BEING WELL
Window Of Opportunity
Neville
had completed degrees in zoology, medicine and the further studies to become
a psychiatrist in the mid Fifties. In 1956, three years prior to setting up
Fraser House, Neville initiated the first group psychotherapy program for
schizophrenics in Gladesville Hospital (Yeomans
1965, Vol. 12, p. 66-69).
Neville recognized that, with considerable upheaval and questioning in the
area of mental health in New South Wales, and a Royal Commission being mooted
into past practices - there was a small window of opportunity for innovation
in the mental health area. The New South Wales health department built the
Fraser House residential unit especially for Neville. Neville was aged
thirty-one when he obtained the go-ahead from the New South Wales Health
Department to take in patients at Fraser House, a psychiatric Unit located in
the grounds of North Ryde Hospital in Sydney, New South Wales - now called
the Gladesville Macquarie Hospital. The Fraser House men’s ward was opened in
September 1959 and the women’s ward in October 1960. Fraser House was a 78
bed and 8 cot short-term government hospital for voluntary severe
psychiatric people; psychotics, schizophrenics, psycho-neurotics, and people
with personality disorders. This Unit was established from outset as a therapeutic
community, with Dr. Neville Yeomans as founding director and psychiatrist. Photo 1 Neville and
nurse at Fraser House Assuming A Social Basis Of Mental Illness
Neville evolved Fraser House assuming
a social basis of mental illness. Consistent with this, the treatment was
sociologically oriented. It was based upon a social model of mental dis-ease
and a social model of change to ease and wellbeing. Neville and
Fraser House worked with the notion that the patients’ life difficulties were
in the main, from ‘cracks’ in society, not them. Neville was familiar
with twin sociological notions that people are social products and at the
same time people together constitute their social reality (Berger
and Luckmann 1967). Neville took as a starting
framework that a person’s internal and external experience, along with
interpersonal linking with family, friends and wider society all have
connexity. Given this, Neville held to the view that pathological society,
pathological community, and dysfunctional social networks give rise to
criminality and mental dis-ease in the individual. As well, his view was that
‘mad’ and ‘bad’ behaviors emerge from dysfunctionality in family and
friendship networks. Problematic behaviors may be experienced as feeling bad
or feeling mad, or feeling mad and bad. For these people, life may be lived
as unfathomable mess. While Neville recognized massively interconnected
causal process were at work, he also recognized and emphasized this macro to
micro direction of complex interwoven causal processes within the
psychosocial dimension. Working with the above framework Neville set out to
use the Keyline principle, ‘do the opposite’ to interrupt and reverse
dysfunctional psychosocial and psychobiological processes. Neville told me a number of
times that the aim and outcome of Fraser House therapeutic processes was
‘balancing emotional expression’ towards being a ‘balanced friendly person’
who could easy live firstly, within the Fraser House community, and then in
the wider community. The process doesn’t require or need ‘intellectual’
therapy. In this there is resonance between Nevilles and Assagioli’s thinking
(Assagioli
1971). Neville’s view was that the
intellect is the ‘servant of emotions’ and ‘servant of reproductive and
survival instincts’. Many Fraser House patients returned to functionality
with little by way of insight about what had happened to them. Neville said
that what they were researching at the Unit was whether sharing everyday
Fraser House milieu would lead to emotional corrective experience and a move
to functional living in the wider society. Neville
wanted to create a special place where people could evolve their own way of
life – their own culture – together; where they could evolve themselves as
they evolved their shared reality. This follows
from Neville’s ‘interconnected living system’ view on embodiment outlined in
Chapter Three, namely that our ideas, processes and actions with others in constituting
shared realities may sustain and change the way our body functions, and
simultaneously the way our body functions may sustain and change our ideas,
feelings processes and actions. While all manner of things
were awry with patients – cognitively, mentally, physically, emotionally, and
socially – within the Fraser house milieu, all structure and process framed
and actuated the ‘community’ as the central transforming process in the
therapeutic community, regardless of a patient’s presenting condition and
conventional diagnosis. LAYOUT, LOCALITY, AND CULTURAL LOCALITY
Locality and Layout
Fraser
House was a set of buildings over a quarter of a kilometer long. The buildings were set in a long thin wiggly line along
the contour line - refer map below. From my reckoning, the building is along
a Keyline, and Neville’s office was at the Keypoint. I had already noted this
when in 2001 Jack Wells, who is familiar with Keyline and worked at Fraser
House in the early 1970’s after Neville had left, also pointed out to me the
Keyline connection in the Unit’s layout. I met Wells through a conference
festival that Neville helped evolve called ConFest. This Conference Festival
is discussed in Chapter Eight. Photo 2 Jack Wells at
ConFest Photo 3 Fraser House
along Keyline where the convex curve becomes concave The
buildings were linked by enclosed walkways. While Fraser House was specially
built for Neville, he had no say in aspects of the design layout. The Health
Department ‘system’ required complete separation of males and females in
different wards. A single story administration building was in the middle. At
one end of the central administration section was a meeting room
(approximately eight meters by sixteen meters) where the big meetings were
held. Diagram 1 Map of section of
Gladesville MacQuarrie Hospital,
(formerly North Ryde Hospital) showing Fraser House, made up of Wards
8 & 9, now called the Lachlan Center At either end of the administration block there was a double
story 39 bed ward, and there was a dining room at each end. There was a
separate staff office in each ward. Most rooms were 4 bed dormitories. There
were a few single rooms in each ward. In Fraser
House, the State system’s intention to have a division of sexes in separated
wards would have been ‘shattering’ any chance of what Neville called ‘total
community’, ‘transitional community’ and ‘balanced community’. Neville viewed
the original planned (by the system) use of space as ‘schizoid’ - completely
divisive, split - creating ‘them and us’ and ‘no go’ areas for both patients
and staff. Neville saw this separation of the sexes as isomorphic with
cleavered dysfunctional community. Warwick Bruen was a psychologist at Fraser
House in the early 1960’s. In a 1998 interview, Bruen described the initial
separation of sexes into different wards required by the Department as, ‘an
extension of the medical infection model’. Photo 4 One Wing of the
Fraser House Dorms The
female ward opened in October 1960. Neville rearranged room allocation so
there were no separate wards for males and females, although bedrooms
remained same sex. This required some negotiating between Neville and the
male staff and Unions as there was resistance to this change. After the Unit
was running for a time, eight downstairs rooms were set aside for
families-in-residence. The eight cots were also in these rooms. School age
child patients at Fraser House attended local schools. Neville
arranged for the dining room at one end to be used by all patients. The other
dining room was turned into a TV, games and recreation room. This created the
necessity for patients and staff alike to walk more than quarter of a
kilometer wending through each building and along winding covered walkways
between buildings to go to these popular places. The dining room, the lounge
room and the long corridor between them were all public spaces conducive to
meeting and talking. Fraser House was a replication
of the community space of the Tikopia Villages and trails. Locality As Connexion To Place And Connexity With Place
The
following is a synthesis of my crosschecked findings from interviewees and
archival records. Neville created opportunities for Fraser House residents to
respect and celebrate their diversity in creating social unity and cohesion
as the Fraser House Community. While Fraser House was located in the
grounds of the North Ryde Hospital, Neville was creating locality in the sense
of ‘connexion to place’. He structured interaction such that the close
communal living and the mores they evolved together helped constitute and
sustain individual and communal psychosocial wellbeing among the residents.
Neville also structured interaction during Fraser House events, and outdoor
picnics and excursions (Fraser House Follow-up Committee of
Patients 1963). Just as in Tikopia, Neville
structured social exchange such that psychosocial wellbeing processes were
woven completely into every aspect
of their lives together. There was constant linking within and between people
of differing generations, gender, ‘clan’ (family group), ‘village’, home
locality, status and occupation (that is, differing sociological categories).
Neville did this by cleavering the Big Group attendees into the Small Groups,
each time using different sociological categories. This is discussed in
Chapter Five. In Fraser
House, everyone’s lives in the Unit’s space created public space. The Unit’s
public space was community space - where people were in continual close
social exchange - where friendships blossomed and were sustained by regular
contact. Neville created Tönnies' ‘Gessellschaft’ (Tönnies and Loomis
1963). Like in Tikopia, with
all of the constant social exchange, any strife soon became common knowledge
and typically, it was interrupted before it could start. Within the wider
civil society there is scant ‘public space’ as places that allow for, and
foster people engaging in conversing and community building with friends,
relatives and strangers. The shared community life in Fraser House ‘public
space’ meant that people continually talked to and about each other, and
hence, like on Tikopia, social news was continually circulating. In Fraser
House this circulating of social news was encouraged by the slogan, ‘bring it
up in a group’. At certain
times of each day there was a mingling flow of females and males from one end
of Fraser House to the other along a winding long
passageway that mirrored the mountain trails between both sides of Tikopia
Island. In Fraser House everyone was ‘contained’ within healing
community space. Everybody was in every one else’s gaze, and audience to each
other’s change work. Chilmaid made the observation in April 1999 that there
was literally no place to hide in Fraser House. One swoop through the place
would find someone if they were there. Neville
created a large community gathering place in Fraser House for Big Group
Meetings and many smaller gathering places for Small Group meetings and
re-creation, with the passages between these (and the dining room) mirroring
Tikopia trails. In evolving Fraser House, Neville engaged in place-making and
sub-place-making. For example, the room that Big Group was held in became a
very special place. Neville set
up a process where there was always a support network to call on to resolve
any issue. As necessary, a special support network would be temporarily
created to surround one or more till an issue was resolved. For example, in
Fraser House suicidal people would have a small 24 hour-a-day support group
comprising patients and staff. The Unit’s evolving common stock of practical
wisdom about what works was so readily passed on that this wisdom was widely
held in the Fraser House community. Patients, Outpatients and staff who had
been in Fraser House for a time knew ‘what worked’ in different contexts.
These socio-healing actions were preventive. They sustained wellbeing. They
were the norm. Social exchange that ‘worked’ constituted an integral part of
the patients, outpatients and staff’s evolving good life together. Typically
it was trivial ‘everyday stuff’ about how to live well together. Like
in Tikopia, within Fraser House Neville structured it so that people lived
with those most different to themselves. The under-active
over-controlled shared dorms with the over-active under-controls. As in
Tikopia they lived with those most different in order to gain unity and
strength together though regular contact in day-to-day life. All involved in
Fraser House experienced inter-related cohesive factors of everyday
operation, the use of a common understanding and experience of Fraser house
routines and shared values, and the sharing of a common culture; the sharing
of Community (with a capital ‘C’), - to paraphrase Firth - all that is
implied by all involved in the Unit when they would speak of themselves as
‘being at Fraser House’, just as the Tikopian said ‘tatou na Tikopia,’ ‘We
the Tikopia,’ Locality
as ‘connexion to place’ became ‘connexity with place’ by Neville’s modeling
and by osmosis as all aspects of Fraser House’s social forces naturally
constituted interdependent, inter-related, interwoven, inter-connected, and interlinked
experience and action. While I can write about this, to fully
sense Fraser House we would have had to have been there; words are not up to
the job – like attempting to convey with words the lived experience of
listening to Bach’s Mass in B Minor. All the above is discussed in greater
detail in this and later Chapters. Cultural Locality
Crosschecked
interview reports from all of my Fraser House interviewees and findings from
a wide range of archival material (Yeomans 1965; Yeomans 1965; Yeomans
1966; Yeomans 1967) confirm that the Fraser House
milieu became a community of people who were evolving their own sub-culture
together. While all people do this all the time, Neville recognized that
linking people together, and simultaneously linking them to a specific place,
has potential. In the last Chapter I referred to this as creating ‘cultural
locality’ (Kutena 2002). Neville used the word ‘culture’ as
meaning ‘way of life together’. He used the word ‘locality’ having this
meaning in his drafting of the Objects of the Keyline Trust mentioned in
Chapter Eight. In specifying things being produced by the Keyline Trust
Neville wrote: (b) Such materials and productions to be Australian in origin and dominantly for the purposes of enhancing community cooperation and mutual support, locality, self respect, friendliness, creativity, culturally appropriate peaceful nationalism and multinational regional cooperation Recall that ‘Cultural
locality’ means ‘way of life together in this place’. ‘Cultural locality’ is
derived from Indigenous sensitivities, wisdom and way. While Neville used the
term ‘locality’ to mean ‘connexion to place’ I cannot recall him using the
expression ‘cultural locality’, although I sense he would have had resonance
with this expression. All people involved in the Unit belonged to and were
together evolving the Fraser House cultural locality. The places and spaces
in Fraser House became very familiar. They were intimately known. These
spaces and places, as well as the staff, outpatients and staff in those
spaces and places were all an integral part of it. Once oriented
participants in the Unit knew where they were within Fraser House. This was
in a twofold sense, firstly, where they were in Fraser House space, and
secondly, something far more challenging, where they were in relation with
all the others in the Fraser House community. They also knew where they
were in relation to other places and spaces in Fraser House. All of this was
embodied. They had feeling and knowings and associated shared understandings
of the past happenings in Fraser House places and spaces. Their mindbody
‘livingness’ – as in ‘the whole of it’ (Kutena 2002) responded to the re-membering of
these happenings. All involved were living the physical embodiment of the
Fraser House cultural locality. By arranging for all in Fraser House to
attend Big Group meetings Neville was creating concentrated cultural
locality. The vibrant cultural locality of Fraser House was vastly different
to the anomic, displaced, normless, alienated, unconnected, meaningless,
overwhelming, aggravating lives they had been leading. EMBODYING KEYLINE
The
Tikopia people, in communally walking against and with gravity as they walked
over the ridges to an fro - passing those opposite to themselves in friendly
banter - were embodying their way of
life - a mindbody synthesis with their people, their place, and their world.
Like the Tikopians, all in walking to and thro in Fraser House were embodying their way of life - a
mindbody synthesis with their fellow Fraser house people, in their place and
in their world of their co-reconstituting. For
Neville particularly, ideas, feelings, bodily functioning – even down to the
neuro-psychobiological dendritic and cellular level, as well as psychosocial
processes and actions in everyday life are all interactive and
co-constituting, that is, each part plays a part in maintenance and change
processes. This is discussed in Chapter Six. Resonant with Neville’s view on embodiment, Stephen
Rose, author of the Conscious Brain (Rose 1976; Rose 2002) in a radio interview broadcast on the Australian ABC Science
Show on Saturday 29 June 2002 said, ‘Changes in Society can change people’s
nature, which in turn can change their biology’. Neville would have said that
change in any of these three aspects might ripple through to change the
others. This has important implications. Our ideas, processes and actions
individually and collectively may sustain and change the way our body
functions. The way our body functions may sustain and change our ideas,
processes and actions. Another term for ‘embodying’ is ‘incorporating’ from
the Latin ‘in corpus’ meaning, ‘in the body’. This embodying has been
intimated a number of times already. Neville was constantly exploring how to
foster and use this interactive embodiment
happening within and between connected people who are connected to place
– cultural locality. Fraser House people incorporated Fraser House Way. This extends ideas discussed by Berger and Luckmann that society is
social constituted and in this process - people are constituted as products
of society, psychosocially, and psychobiologically
(Berger and Luckmann 1967). Recent research into tensegrity (integrity through tension) (Buckminster Fuller 1961; Pugh 1976) and intercellular communication is resonant with this. The creative
and strategic use by Neville of tension to enable integrating possibilities
(tensegrity) in Fraser House will be introduced in Chapters Four through
Seven. Neville’s use of ‘extegrity’ (Yeomans 1999), a term he used meaning ‘extensive integrity’ in Laceweb peacehealing
for reconstructing collapsed societies is discussed in Chapters Nine and Ten.
SOURCING PATIENTS
Back Wards and Prisons
It
was not commonly known in 1959 and through the Sixties that Neville set up
Fraser House to be a micro-model of a dysfunctional world and more
specifically, a micro-model of the alienated dysfunctional fringe of a
dysfunctional world. This was the major first step in exploring epochal
change. This was where Neville felt it was the best possible place to start.
What’s more it was Neville’s view that together, this fringe had massive
inherent potential to thrive. This was isomorphic with nature’s tenacity
to thrive at the margins. Neville’s aim was to work with and tap this potency
just as he and his father worked with the emergent potential of their
farmland. His relation to the land and to this alienated dysfunctional fringe
was one of love, care, respect and awe at their potential, rather than one of
disdain, domination and control. Neville was mirroring Indigenous way. To
approximate this alienated fringe, Neville arranged to populate the Fraser
House with a balanced group of ‘mad’ and ‘bad’ people. To reiterate for
emphasis, Neville was not just setting himself a big challenge in starting
with the mad and bad of Sydney, he did so because he firmly believed that
these, along with dysfunctional Aboriginal and Islanders were the best
people to work with in evolving a new caring epoch Fraser House accepted long-term chronic mental patients and
other severely mentally ill people balanced with an equal number of
criminals, alcoholics, delinquents, addicts, and according to the sexual
mores of the Sixties, homosexuals, prostitutes and other sexual deviants (Yeomans 1961; Yeomans 1961; Clark and Yeomans 1969). There was a spread across the various diagnostic categories.
The intake aim was to have a spread of categories present in the Unit.
Appendix 3 shows the various categories of patients in Fraser House as at 30
June 1962. Note that there were an equal number of males and females. This
was typical From
the outset Neville negotiated with the Office of Corrections that Fraser
House would have twenty male and twenty female prisoners released on license
to Fraser House at any one time. People were transferred straight from jail
and signed on as voluntary patients. None of the Wards at Fraser House were
locked. Few absconded. If they did, they knew that Neville would send the police
after them. Upon their return to Fraser House they would face the possibility
of not being able to stay and therefore the aversive possibility of being
transferred to another hospital, or for ex-prisoners, being transferred back
to jail with further charges against them. The
prisoners selected to go to Fraser House typically had considerable
psychosocial dysfunction that had been in no way addressed by incarceration.
They were typically in the last months of their prison term. Typically, that
some of them had to be soon
released back into society was a worry to people at all levels of society. Fraser House patients were adults, teenagers and children of
both sexes, mainly from middle and working-class backgrounds. Typically,
around two thirds of Fraser House patients were referred from public
agencies, especially state Psychiatric Services. Other institutional
referrals came from courts, probation and parole services, and the narcotics
and vice squads. Some admitted were referred by private individuals, doctors,
patients and staff (Clark 1969, p.58-59). Some staff admitted themselves as voluntary patients. In
1961, referrals were accepted from patients, and family and friends were
admitted. In 1963 whole families were admitted. Desegregation of family units
and single patients occurred in 1964. (Yeomans
1965, Vol. 4 p. 2-4). During the development of Fraser House in 1959 the working name
for the Unit was reported in the Weekender Newspaper as the ‘Neurosis and
Alcohol Unit’. Neville was reported in the Sunday Telegraph Newspaper, 14
February 1960 as saying that he believed that Fraser House was the only
clinic in the World where Alcoholics and Neurotics mingle 50% and 50 % (1960, February 14). The male Unit had both single and married men. Married men who
were alcoholics could have their wives stay with them regardless of whether
the wife was an alcoholic or not. The couple was the focus of change. This
was the start of eight family suites. Whole families with two and three
generations, from babes in arms to the elderly were involved in the suites.
Neville pioneered family therapy and inter-generational therapy in Australia. The focus of change at Fraser House for both the mad and the bad
was ‘the patient in their family-friendship-workmate network’. In keeping
with this, another condition of entry was that members of a patient’s family
friend workmate network had to sign in as outpatients and attend Big and Small
Groups on a regular basis. According to all of my interviewees, including a
former patient and outpatient, the Fraser House outpatient sub-community was permeated with
dysfunctional/problematic behavior, which was typically transformed to
functionality by their involvement in Fraser House. It was regularly found
that dysfunctional patients had dysfunctional family-friendship-workmate
networks. The focus of change being the patients and outpatients and their respective networks made
sense from the Fraser House experience. In supporting mad and bad people to live well with each other,
Neville’s view was that one of the primary healing processes that was both
structured into and continually and pervasively at work within Fraser House, was
the day-to-day lived-life dynamic healing interplay of social cleaving and unifying processes; the
same processes that have been discussed in talking about Tikopia. Neville
would set up scope for micro-experiences creating very strong forces cleaving
pathological entanglements, as well as forging functional bonds within
and between people - linking them back to their humanity. Balancing Community
Resonant with Tikopia and as part of Fraser House’s Unity
through Diversity, Neville arranged for Fraser House to be a ‘balanced
community’. Neville endeavored to have equal numbers in each of a number of
categories. Neville sought and obtained balance within the Unit population on
the following characteristics: ·
inpatients and outpatients ·
mad and bad ·
males and females ·
married and single ·
young and old ·
under-active and over-active ·
under-anxious and over-anxious ·
under-controlled and over-controlled Figure
1 Categories in
which Neville sought to have equal numbers of Patients Neville
in his paper ‘Socio-therapeutic Attitudes to Institutions’ refers to the potency of community
process in the ‘balanced community’ he had created. He speaks of a special
kind of community as a therapeutic technique, where, ‘therapeutic
techniques must aim at giving patients autonomy and responsibilities, and to
encourage contrast with (the wider) community, the ‘balanced community’ aims
for a mixture of patient types so that the strain is towards normality rather
than the strain toward the mode of abnormal behavior of a particular section
of the institution’ (Yeomans 1965, Vol 12.
p. 49). The above quote is another example
of the way change was structured into the Fraser House process. The emergent
properties of social and community forces were recognized and harnessed. In
his monograph, ‘Social Categories in a Therapeutic Community’ (Yeomans
1965, Vol. 2 p. 1) Neville describes a
number of processes used to allocate beds : age grading, marital status and
social categories. Room allocation was never based on diagnosis. While there were same sex dorms (except in the family
units) Neville ensured that the opposites were placed together in dorms,
therapy groups, activities and patient-based committee work. An example of
structured use of cleavage/unity processes in Fraser House was allocating
bedrooms such that two under-controlled hyper-actives (e.g. sociopaths) were
placed in with two over-controlled under-actives (e.g. neurotic depressives).
This became the main basis for room allocation. Many interweaving processes, to be discussed later, ensured
patient safety. Having opposites sharing the same dorm was based on the
principle that the presence of opposites creates a metaphorical normal
position in the middle. Fraser house research showed that there was a
tendency towards the mean, with under-controlled becoming more controlled,
and less active; the over-controlled became less controlled and more active. Drawing 1 The metaphorical
normal middle A
‘glimpse’ of Neville’s use of the above two principles and Tikopia’s
cleavered unities show up in the book, ‘Fraser House’ under the subheading
‘Cleavages’ (Clark and Yeomans 1969, p. 131). ‘The
friendship patterns, and therefore the informal influence structure,
reflected cleavages in social groupings according to status (patient or
staff) and sex. This conclusion is based on a sociogram, figure 14.1
constructed from replies to the question’ ‘Who are your main friends in the
Unit?’ ....’ Sociogram 1 This sociogram
is Figure 14.1 from Clark and Yeomans, 1969 book depicting a sociogram
of Mutual Choice Friendship Structure ‘In the
sociogram, a horizontal line shows
the cleavage between staff and
patients, and a vertical line shows
the cleavage between the sexes’ (my
italics). The
authors summarize the sociogram data as follows, ‘In short,
the genotypical structure of the community
(my comment: ‘as a healing community’) is represented by the mutual ties that
form a network which is both continuous
and yet divided by sex and
staff-patient status (my italics).’ One
observation of the emerging community depicted in the above sociogram is the
relationship between the informal and the formal social structure. Clark and
Yeomans provide the following comment on this: ‘The individuals with the most formal power
are the psychiatrist in charge (Neville) (40) and the medical officer (41),
the male charge nurse (23) and the female charge nurse (11). Of these, the
only one with a link, by means of a mutual tie, into the genotypical informal
social structure was the psychiatrist in charge. This suggests that the main
burden of influence and communication falls on the lower status individuals.’ This
finding is fully in keeping with Neville’s notion of devolving responsibility
and reversing the status quo. It was also in keeping with Neville’s hands-off
though being profoundly and sensitively linked that he was enabler on the
edge of the informal social structure. Recognizing the inter-generational nature of dysfunction, Fraser
house had three generations of some families staying in the family units or attending
as outpatients. There were three types of inpatient categories - firstly,
inpatients who attended each day from 9A.M. to 9 P.M.; secondly, residential
inpatients who went out to work full-time or part-time; and thirdly,
full-time residential inpatients. Fraser House
was a huge endeavor. Once under way it was having around 13,000 outpatient
visits a year. Big Groups and Small Groups were held twice a day on all
weekdays with between 100 and 180 in attendance five days a week year round. Fraser
House had more than 3000 small groups a year with between 8 to 12 people
attending, i.e. between 24,000 and 36,000 people attendances (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 4 , p. 18) For all of the unifying talk within Fraser House of, ‘we are all
co-therapists’ - staff and patients alike - when a member of staff required
treatment it was given in groups containing only staff members, or the
treatment was given separately from the day-to-day functioning of the unit,
or the staff member gave up the staff position and signed in as a patient.
Some staff did do this. Aboriginal and Islander Patients
In keeping with his (Yeomans 1965) interest, one of the early things Neville did was to invite
Mental Hospitals throughout NSW to send any Australian Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander patients that they had incarcerated to Fraser House. The 9
April 1962 Daily Mirror ran an article with the heading, ‘NSW Lifts the
Aboriginal States – Freedom in Ryde Clinic’ (1962) wherein Neville is quoted as saying, ‘We have a plan to
transfer to the Centre over a period of time all 50 Aboriginals who are now
patients in NSW mental hospitals.’
Around Fifty Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients
were sent to Fraser House, emptying all the other Mental Hospitals of
patients with these backgrounds. Apart from a few that needed full time care because of
associated medical conditions, all of these Aboriginal and Islander people passed
through Fraser House and were returned to their respective communities. Both
Bruen and Chilmaid, as well as media reports (Yeomans 1965) confirmed that these patients blended into and participated in every
aspect of the Fraser House healing milieu. The 9 April 1962 Daily Mirror
article mentioned above also stated: ‘Aboriginals mix freely with white patients in a special unit at
the North Ryde Psychiatric Clinic. It is the first time in NSW that Aboriginals
have been accepted with equality in a psychiatric unit. They share the same
wards and have the same privileges as white patients’. Neville is reported as saying, ‘One Aboriginal patient at a
mental hospital for 20 years had been completely rehabilitated after a few
months at the center. He is now at home with his family.’ Margaret Cockett would continually ask around the prison/court
system for any Aboriginal and Islander people who could be transferred to
Fraser House. Typically, the people involved in the prisons were pleased to
let Aboriginal and Islander people transfer. One such Aboriginal prisoner was
paranoid as the reason he was in jail was that whenever he was drunk he would
go out of his way to punch policemen. He settled down in Fraser House and was
released to more functional living with his family. As
an example of a back ward individual, Neville described the case of an
isolate micro-encephalic Aboriginal person (born with a very small brain) who
presented with few skills. He had the body of a twelve year old though he was
an adult. He had no capacity for speech and would make aversive noises, for
example, snarling and screeching. As well, he would get angry and bite.
Within the Unit, at Neville’s instigation, this person was related to as if
he was a ‘lovable little puppy dog’. This matched his optimal functioning.
After this he soon became friendly, contented and easily fitted in to Fraser
House society. Neville described his cries as: ‘…soon becoming harmonious and
naturally expressive of mood - typically, contentment and happiness compared
to the prior screeching. He had probably moved close to the optimum
functioning of his mindbody. Thereafter he was attached to various factions.
He was able to move back out into the community in a care-house and fit in
with the house life as a normal micro-encephalic person rather than a
dysfunctional abnormal one’. Neville
was fascinated that this person adjusted so well to social life and his
change was a convincer for Neville that emotional freeing up is the core of
all therapy. ‘With no frontal cortex to speak of, how else could he have
changed?’ THE FRASER HOUSE MILIEU
Creating Whirlpools
Both psychosocial structure and
processes where entangled in Fraser House just as the. whirlpool’s structure
only exists as water in process in a vortex. Similarly Fraser House’s tenuous
evolving psychosocial structure was constituted, reconstitured and sustained
as self-organising human energy - as processes in action. Being Voluntary
While many
of Fraser House patients were people who had been committed to other asylums
and required approval of the system to leave, a condition of entry to Fraser
House was that patients voluntarily accept
the transfer to Fraser House with some appreciation of what the Unit was
like. Having all patients
‘voluntary’ was part of the self-help frame Neville set up at Fraser House.
This ‘voluntary’ component was a crucial aspect of patient empowerment.
Neville saw the Health Department stopping this voluntary requirement in the
late Sixties as the single most important imposed change that ended Fraser
House as self organizing Cultural Keyline in action. This is discussed
further later. Neville
asked around Mental Asylums for people they had in their back wards. These
wards were typically where ‘long term stays’ were kept who the system had
given up on ever restoring to society. Eleven certified patients from
Gladesville Hospital’s back wards were asked, and Neville described them as
more in the ‘resigned to coming’ category. They were given ‘Special Care
Leave" from their home hospital and signed on
as patients at Fraser House. Neville said that apart for a couple who had
serious medical problems who needed constant care, the rest of these moved
through Fraser House and back to functional living in Society. Re-Casting the System
There
is present in society a caste system that says, ‘normals have to behave
normally, criminals behave criminally and mad people are anticipated to
behave madly’. One psychiatric nurse with experience outside of Fraser House
said that in her experience of other mental asylums, both the patients and
the staff will tolerate madness in other patients, ‘because the patients are
ill’. However, they typically will not tolerate the slightest bit of
inappropriate behavior in staff. This again reflects the caste system. When I
mentioned her comments to Neville. his view was that while this ‘tolerance’
towards patients in other institutions in one sense is ‘showing consideration’,
at the same time, this tolerance maintains the madness. In Fraser House there
was relentless subversion of both madness and criminality, and rather than
displaying a tolerance that maintained the status quo, fellow patients took
the lead in this subverting. Some people in some categories of mental
disorders were inept in picking pathology. Other patients and outpatients
became very skilled at picking pathology or were already skilled at this and
took the lead in pointing out, ‘that madness and badness are not tolerated
here’. In Big
Group, and in other Fraser House contexts, people would be engaging in all
the ‘natural’ dysfunctional roles of ‘helpless’, ‘hopeless’, ‘blamer’,
‘judger’, ‘condemner’, ‘distracter’, ‘demander’ and the like. For a
discussion of these terms refer Virginia Satir’s books (Satir 1972; Bandler, Grinder
et al. 1976; Satir 1983; Satir 1988). Typically, some of the
patients using these behaviors would be withdrawn isolates. Anyone using any
of these behaviors in Fraser House would have had it pointed out to them and
typically, they would have been interrupted. If they persisted in the
behavior this would have been reported to Big Group and Small Groups. This
is another example of Neville’s use of his father’s idea of using ‘opposites’
and ‘reversals to mainstream protocols. When madness or badness was subverted, all hell may break
loose, and Fraser House had the processes to work with the corrective
emotional outpourings and experience, and the support for people through this
experience, towards functionality. Getting On With It
Recall
that from inception, Neville had teed up Fraser House as a ‘short term stay’
facility. For Neville, Fraser House was not an interim ‘holding place ‘ while
a long term place could be found in other institutions. From the outset
Neville had confidence that his ideas would work in getting people living
functionally in the wider community. A rule was set up that patients could only stay at Fraser House for six months.
This was later reduced to three months. After three months patients had to
leave regardless of whether they had improved or not. This rule was to
provide motivation to ‘get on with their healing’. The clear message of the
rule in the vernacular was, ‘Don’t procrastinate. Get on with it.’ At one
time the typical stay was six weeks (Yeomans
1965, Vol. 4 p. 2-4). Another general rule on admittance was that patients could return
to Fraser House three times. The break between returning was flexible. One
patient said that he wanted a transfer to Gladesville Hospital. He was told
that on leaving Gladesville he could not return to Fraser House for six
months. He did go to Gladesville for a short time and then settled down and
got on with his healing at home. This was reported to Neville by patients
doing follow-up domiciliary work – (from conversation with Neville during
Aug, 1999). This follow-up work is discussed later in this Chapter. Fraser House As Therapeutic Community
In
Neville’s paper, ‘The Psychiatrist’s Responsibility for the Criminal, the
Delinquent, the Psychopath and the Alcoholic’ (Yeomans
1965, Vol. 12, p. 50)
he wrote, ‘The community is allowed easiest into the hospital which treats
the whole family and friendship group of the patient.’ Neville quotes from
WHO Technical Report Series No. 208. 9th Report of the Expert
Committee on Mental Health 1961, p.15 in his paper, ‘Sociotherapeutic
Attitudes to Institutions’ (Yeomans
1965):
‘In the opinion of the Committee, the importance of adequate training in
medical sociology can’t be over estimated, particularly in connection with
the teaching of mental health promotion.’ Neville wrote of that, ‘World
Health Organization Report’ that enlarged upon the growing view that the
recovery of mental patients depends less upon the specific therapeutic
techniques than on the socio-psychological environment of the patients in the
hospital’ (Yeomans
1965 Vol. 12, p. 46, 60-61).
Consistent with creating ‘cultural locality’ Neville went on to say that
Clinicians, ‘must aim at allowing the outside culture into the institution’. The
socio-psychological environment in Fraser House was central to the change
process. As mentioned in the Chapter Three method
section, it took me a long time to realize that the expression, ‘Therapeutic
Community’ was not just a title. Fraser House was a therapeutic community - pervasively. Therapy was the
function; Community was the process.
The word ‘therapy’ was not used in the conventional sense of something
done to someone by a psychotherapist, but in the sense of self-organizing
self and mutual co-reconstituting of wellbeing. The Fraser House milieu was like the soil on the Yeomans’ farm.
It was complex, interwoven and maintained in a thriving state because of very
strategic redesign features that Neville set up and sustained, fully
consistent with thrival aspects within individuals as living system and
between individuals as a Fraser House living system. At Fraser
House, other dysfunctional people were regularly arriving into a community of
dysfunctional people in various stages of shifting towards being able to live
well with others and return functionally to the wider community. It was not
just a unit where everyone did their best to make it therapeutic. In the
Unit, the community as ‘community’ functioned as therapy. In
Fraser House thousands of people were coming and going with between ten and
thirteen thousand outpatient visits annually. There was the therapeutic
perpetual passing on by staff and patient alike of the ‘common stock of
knowledge of how things work around here’ (Berger and Luckmann
1967) - individual quirks,
where things were, who sits in that chair at that time, the little routines -
all the little bits that make living comfortably with others possible. All the
members of the Fraser House therapeutic community – staff, patients and
outpatients - as community, shared their lives with each other. In Fraser
House the norm was created that there was never any blaming of any one.
Anyone blaming himself or herself or anyone else would be immediately
interrupted. If anything happened it was deemed to be a shortcoming of the total community. Neville said that every aspect of Fraser House was
structured as a community system that overrode everything limiting change, even a doctor’s power of veto. Only Neville as director had the power
of veto and he was always driven by
context, and within that, the ecological part of the context; so he too
fitted in with the fitting. Neville’s process is discussed further in Chapter
Five. Any doctor breaking this veto rule would have his or her attention
drawn to it by patients and staff, including the cleaners, and the matter
would be a priority agenda item during the next Big Group. In a 30 June 1999
conversation with Neville he said, ‘Doctors working in Fraser House would
have had their maximal sense of professional powerlessness in their careers.
Doctors being authoritarian was not permitted. Most administrative things
that doctors would decide as a matter of course in other medical contexts had to be brought to meetings where patients had a voice and were in
the majority. If a life-threatening situation occurred where a doctor or
other ‘professional’ felt the need to intervene, then a special committee of
as many patients and staff as possible would be quickly convened. These
temporary special committees would be typically reviewed at the next Big
Group.’ Staff Relating
The nurses and doctors
within mainstream never fraternized in each other’s tea-room; they did
in Fraser House. The mainstream way at the time was that a nurse would always
stand if a Doctor entered a room. Nurses new to Fraser House would be tugged
back down on to their chairs when they stood when a Doctor entered the room.
‘None of that necessary here!’ It took a time for this big change to settle
in. In Fraser House, the shared norm was that ‘the voice of the newest nurse
was just as equal as any one else’. At Fraser House Nurses worked as a team (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 4 , p. 17). One of the nurse roles was that of
educator (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 4 , p. 20-23). Neville’s
view was that the power – the healing wisdom, psychosocial and emotional
energy, and creativity of the Fraser House community was infinitely greater
than anyone, including himself. According to Neville during an August
1999 conversation, ‘the staff were astonishingly loyal, and acted with
inspired devotion’. Neville gave all concerned almost absolute freedom except
in times of crisis. As a by-product, staff fostered their new profession and
won a new award rate in creating a new role for themselves as nurse
therapists. Fraser House psychiatric nurses were the first ones to achieve a
professional award salary in Australia. Such was the passion and commitment
within the staff that Neville would often have to order them to go home.
Consistent with Neville’s Way discussed in Chapter Three, he would leave
almost total freedom to the community so that it could evolve itself (emergent
and self organizing process). For and Against
While Fraser
House had the support and backing of the Head of the Health Department, the
second string people of the Health Department were bitterly opposed to every
aspect of Fraser House as it challenged every one of their beliefs about
psychiatry, psychiatric nursing, nursing, as well as about hospital
governance, structure, administration and practice. While
operating ‘within’ a ‘government service delivery’ frame, Neville set up
another frame, namely, ‘folk self-organizing self-help action in community’.
Mainstream ‘health’s, ‘we do it for you because we know’ ‘servive delivery’
people had little or no sense of this new form of ancient wellbeing action. The Far-From-Equilibrium Learning Organization
In
complexity terms, every aspect of Fraser House was structured by Neville and
others to maintain the Unit in a far from equilibrium state. Living
systems that are adaptive and thriving well while being provoked and
challenged by the surrounding ecosystem are usually in far from equilibrium
states (Capra 1997, p. 85-94,
102, 110, 175-178, 187). When situations within
Fraser House became stuck, Neville would intentionally provoke it and then
use the evoked heightened emotional contagion as emotional corrective
experience. Some examples of this are given later in this Chapter and later
Chapters. Neville
created a community which was what Senge called thirty three years later a
‘learning organization’ (Senge 1992). The Unit had a culture of
continual review, innovation and openness to try new ways, leading to
sustained negentropy (the opposite of entropy). Neville was decades ahead of
business cultural change practitioners in introducing what has since being
called, ‘a culture of continual improvement’. Many examples of how Neville
sustained this culture are given later. In the business world this culture of
continual improvement is often talked about, but not easily achieved, as conservative
forces constantly subvert the novel in a myriad ways to maintain near
equilibrium conditions. Business leaders are now beginning to realize that
equilibrium in a fast changing world is a dangerous state that impoverishes
an organization’s adaptive capacity (Davis and Meyer 1999; Pascale,
Millemann et al. 2000). The Use Of Slogans
Neville and staff made extensive use of simple slogans to pass
on to newcomers how the place worked. To have staff, patients, and
outpatients embody the values, ideology and practices of the Unit, simple
slogans were restated over and over. For example, the Unit’s social basis of
mental illness perspective was expressed by the slogan, ‘Relatives and
friends cause mental illness’. The idea of potential for change and using
existing internal resources for change was supported by the slogan, ‘No one
is sick all through’. The best advice that could be given a patient was,
‘Bring it up in a Group’. In the early days of Fraser House, permissiveness
within the staff-patient relation was embodied in the slogan, ‘We are all
patients here together’. The self and mutual help focus was supported by the
slogan, ‘We are all co-therapists’. However, recall that boundaries were
maintained between staff and patient, in that any staff needing psychosocial
support would either receive this within an all-staff support group, or if
the situation warranted it, the Staff member would enter Fraser House as a
voluntary patient. Some staff did this. The requirement that patients and
outpatients get on with self and mutual healing and interrupt any mad or bad
behavior in self and others was reinforced with the mantra, ‘No mad or bad
behavior to take place at Fraser House’. Rules/slogans for use by
the staff were mentioned in a document called, ‘How to administrate in Fraser
House’(Yeomans 1965, Vol. 4 , p. 24). Some examples: ‘Know what to leave
undone in an emergency’ ‘Frequent rounds are a
necessity’ ‘Combine the weak with
the strong’ All of the above slogans and rules became a simple shared
language and set of beliefs that were easily taught to new arrivals. I found the same practice of using simple slogans used
informally among prisoners in my prison work in a 63 bed medium security
special protection unit to sustain a smooth running people system. One
example that was repeatedly used by prisoners was, ‘You either do it (time)
easy or you do it hard’, and another was, ‘You do the crime; you do the
time’. These simple notions linked to spontaneous renouncing of the world
outside the prison in many respects made prison life much easier for many
inmates and contributed to their psychosocial surviving. This happened
spontaneously. Socio-Medicine For Social Cohesion - Everyday Life Milieu
Therapy
Within
Fraser House simple and profound changes occurred in people’s lives during,
and as a function of mundane everyday life contexts – as people went about
sharing food, getting dressed, engaging in idle chats and the like. Neville
called this, ‘Everyday Life Milieu Therapy’. For this, Neville drew upon his
understandings and personal experiencing of Indigenous socio-healing way, as
well as from his reading the work of, and conversations with his colleague,
psychiatrist Dr. John Cawte about Australian Aboriginal Sociomedicine (Cawte 1974; Cawte 2001,
(First edition - 1996)). Paul Wilson,
a noted Australian criminologist and a past head of the Australian Institute
of Criminology and current Dean of the School of Humanities at Bond University,
writes of this learning how to ‘live well with each other’ in describing his
experience of living in a therapeutic community Neville modeled on Fraser
House in Mackay some years after leaving Fraser House (Wilson 1990, p.79-80). The Mackay Therapeutic House was far from being a typical
boarding house. Neville told me that he had incorporated and adapted Fraser
House Way to that small Mackay therapeutic community house. Wilson was having
psycho-emotional difficulties in his life at the time and used his stay in
this therapeutic community house to sort out his life. The following quote is
Paul Wilson’s experience of everyday-life milieu therapy: ‘Neville Yeomans
created a community free of doctrinaire principles. The Mackay setting
successfully created a sense of belonging. Most people who have experienced
deep personal distress have lacked, in my opinion, any sense of residing in a
group or clan. They, like I, have lived their lives constructing walls around
themselves, to protect themselves from other people. In the process, they
have lacked the knowledge and experience of living in a community’. ‘There was nothing magical in the process of achieving this sense
of belongingness..... Our day-to-day activities were almost mundane. I would
wake up in the morning and help whoever was up to get breakfast ready. Then as people came in to the kitchen, we would talk about all
sorts of things people talk about over breakfasts. Marion would ask one of us
to collect some groceries, or to cut the lawn, or help with the laundry.’ ‘Most
importantly, there were always people around you who you felt cared for you as
a human being. This interconnectedness of person with person was the thread
that bound the community together and gave us a sense of ‘family’ - a unit
that many of us had ignored or not had before.’ This passage
resonates with the Fraser House milieu, highlighting the point that everyday
life contexts can provide opportunities for one-trial learning about how to
live together. This links to what Neville called, ‘caring and sharing the
Aboriginal way’ – ‘home, street and rural Mediation Therapy’ and the relating
potency of Neville’s ‘mediation
counseling’. Neville had
drawn from his experiences with Aboriginal and Islander nurturers an
extensive array of micro-experiences and simple processes that foster social
cohesion, family friend networking, relationship building, and healing
happening between people in conflict, within a relational mediating healing
frame. As an aspect
of sociomedicine Neville used what he termed, ‘conversational change’. With
this, everyday conversation has potential for reconstituting people’s being
and behavior. In exploring ‘conversational change’ processes, Neville also
evolved a set of micro-experiences that may allow the enabling of healing
action to take place ‘on the run’ as it were, as one goes about relating with
other people in day-to-day contexts. These are resonant with the Milton
Erikson’s therapeutic use of language in everyday life (Bandler, Grinder et al.
1979; Hanlon 1987) and the similar subtle
language Eleanor Porter wrote for her character Pollyanna in the book of the
same name (especially Chapters Eight to Ten) – now available on the internet (Porter 1913). Neville passed these ways on to me in action research contexts.
Neville also used what he called ‘context healing, street mediation and group
story performance’. These draw on Indigenous healing process, cultural action
and cultural healing action (Yeomans and Spencer
1993; Queensland Community Arts Network 2002), corroboree, therapeutic communities, dance movement and
Keyline organic farming concepts and processes. This action uses natural and
evolving contexts as healing possibilities. It also uses what Neville called
mediation therapy and mediation counseling for strengthening healing,
relationship and community. These ways are discussed later. A central
component of Fraser House change was the freeing up of emotional and gut
feelings of all involved while sharing in community as they went about
mundane aspects of everyday life. While drawing on the above ways, Neville
also applied from Taoism the idea that for all at Fraser house, healing came
from ‘letting life act through them’ as they went about their shared life
together in the daily routines of getting up, getting dressed, showering, and
the like. Within Fraser House and the subsequent small therapeutic houses
that Neville established, a change component was this persistent sorting out
of how mad and bad people could live well with each other. Patients,
outpatients and staff became skilled as co-therapists during their respective
stays at Fraser House and would engage in ‘everyday life’ therapy as they
engaged in social interaction with each other. Some adopted Neville’s
conversational change processes by absorbing them into their mode of being,
typically without noticing that they were doing this. ‘Therapy’ wasn’t a
mantle that people put on - it was not a ‘chore’ – it was there as a hardly
noticed aspect of being. Clark and Yeomans’
book contains a segment of a young male patient’s diary (Clark and Yeomans 1969). The earlier section has entries where the
patient writes of his confusion and tentativeness about his life and Fraser
House. His dysfunction is implicit in his writing. As his diary entries
proceed, he records things indicating that he is shifting to functioning well
without giving any indication that he even notices that he is changing. Here
is an excerpt from early in this patient’s personal account: ‘I
am sitting beside Jane in the male group room, holding her bandaged hand. She
is very tense. ‘Please help me’, she says. ‘What is the matter with me?’ ‘I
feel frustrated. I don’t know what to do. I tell her that there must be a
reason for her tension and that she should talk about what bothers her to me
or in the groups. But she says that she never knows what to say.’ He
is out of his depth though he reiterates the Fraser House mantra, ‘Bring it
up in a group.’ A little later: ‘I
catch John on the verandah and when I have told him about what bothers me he
asks me: ‘Have you talked to Jane about it?’ ‘No I have not.’ ‘Why don’t
you?’ he says then. ‘She has been leaning on you for so long now, why not
turn the tables for a change and let her help you?’ I haven’t thought of it,
but it sounds logical enough.’ This
is an example of self-help through mutual-help. While these exchanges seem
trivial, Neville and the other interviewees said that time and again the
Fraser House experience was that trivial exchange was potent. At the
end of this patient’s diary he has been assessed as ready to leave Fraser
House and return to the wider world. Nowhere does he give any
indication that he has any insight into the process whereby change to
wellbeing and functional living is occurring in his life, or that such change
is even occurring. He was not engaging in any intellectual sabotage of his
changework – behaviors like faultfinding, judging, blaming, and condemning. Fraser House Social Ecology
The
total Fraser House process curtailed any physical violence. Any newcomers
were assigned a buddy for sometime who tagged them so they were never alone. A ‘contract’ was made that
everyone at Fraser House, staff, patients and outpatients alike, were to
watch out for violent situations and to restrain and interrupt people,
preferably before problematic situations even got under way. No informant had
any knowledge of any staff member ever been seriously hurt. Fraser House was
a relatively big place - around 250 meters long. Outside of Big and Small
Groups and the intervening tea break, people were always spread throughout
the buildings or on the move. Some fights did break out between patients and
were typically interrupted quickly. Any unusual noise would immediately
attract a crowd. The energy and ethos of the Unit was always to respond
immediately to disturbance and interrupt, rather than to encourage fighting,
as more typically happens in wider society. Typically, if something happened
say, late at night, any patient or staff member spotting it would immediately
get everyone who was up and about to form a group (often a fair size group -
as many as they could get) to go to the ‘disturbance’. If someone was doing
an ego trip, he or she would be ‘dumped on big time’. Other
mitigating factors were the continual presence of an audience, the presence
of females and children, and knowing that violence, or threats of violence
would be brought up in Big Group with around 180 mad and bad people present
to focus on the perpetrator(s) of violence. Violence and other unacceptable
behavior would also be invariably discussed in small groups. Typically, there
was commitment to healing in patients and outpatients. All knew that the very
strong expectation within the Unit’s milieu was that, ‘here people change and
return to the wider society well’. There was also a continually reinforced
mantra, ‘no mad or bad behavior to take place at Fraser House’. Crazy
behavior was expected and accepted at every other mental hospital in Australia – after all, the
reasoning went, ‘Patient are crazy,
so what else would you expect’. In stark contrast, new arrivals would have a
settling in period where their mad and bad behavior would be pointed out to
them. Increasingly, mad and bad behavior would be interrupted in ways
discussed later. Patients
also knew that violence could mean their treatment could be terminated.
Recall that another pressure to change was a time limit on a stay at Fraser
House of six months. Recall that during 1965 the common limit rule for staying at the Unit was
five months This was later tightened to three
months and the average length of stay was six weeks (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 4 p. 2-4). After
leaving, people could return two more times by arrangement. These limits
reinforced the, ‘you will return to the wider community’ framing that was
pervasive at Fraser House. After leaving Fraser House people could stay in
‘contact’ with the Fraser House milieu because they had this sustained in
their reconstructed family-friend network Handbooks On Fraser House Structure And Process
Neville gave patients and
outpatients the task of becoming so familiar with Fraser House structures and
processes including the processes Neville and others used to enabling Big and
Small groups that they could and did write extremely well written and
succinct handbooks for use by new staff, patients, outpatients and guests (Yeomans
1965, Vol. 4). Neville wrote the
introduction section of a Handbook called, ‘Fraser House Therapeutic
Community’. This was one of a number prepared at different times specifying
the Unit’s structure-process. Two other statements about Fraser House
structure and process was the February 1965, ‘Introducing a Therapeutic
Community for New Members by the Staff of Fraser House (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 4).
A 1966 draft of the Second Edition of the above document was a
complementary document to the document, ‘Staff Patient Organization in Fraser
House and was largely written by patients (Yeomans
1965, Vol. 4). In March 2003 Chilmade
wrote to me saying that there were handbooks (roneoed typed sheets) both for
patients and relatives. The staff handbook was for longer term staff. ‘I didn`t
get one in my first stay of 3 months in 1962, but did get one (borrowed &
not returned) in 1966 when I spent a full year there. Patients did not get
access to the staff handbook.’ SELF-GOVERNANCE
AND OTHER RECONSTITUTING PROCESSES
The Resocializing Program – Using Governance Therapy
Neville
set up a process whereby patients evolved response abilities by taking responsibility
for their own democratic self-government. Neville
referred to patient-based rule making as creating ‘a community system of law’
(Yeomans 1965, Vol. 3). Law evolved out of evolving Fraser House lore. The Fraser House
vehicle for evolving democratic self-governance initially was a committee
that decided the ground rules for ward life called appropriately the Ward
Committee. Eventually
many committees were established. Patients
outnumbered staff on all committees. Each committee member had one vote. This
meant that patients could always
out-vote staff. This often happened. Neville set the committee ground rules
such that he always had a power of veto. Dissenting people who felt strongly
enough about a decision could take it before Neville and the decision would
be held over till he attended the particular committee where people would
present their views. Neville
rarely overturned a decision made by patients where staff dissented, as by
Neville’s reckoning after due consideration, the patients generally held the
better stance. In his
paper, ‘Sociotherapeutic Attitudes to Institutions’ and consistent with
creating ‘cultural locality’ Neville wrote, ‘Patient committees formalize the
social structure of the patients’ sub-community (Yeomans 1965 Vol. 12, p. 46, 60-61). Neville being ‘dictator’ satisfied
the Health Department’s requirements for Top-Down control. However, in
practice, Neville was a benevolent dictator’ and the patients and outpatients
effectively ran the place – and by all accounts, they ran it effectively. Chapter
Ten discusses Neville’s using his patient self governance processes as a
model for post war reconstruction of decimated societies. The Ward Committee
Patients
were voted on to the Ward committee by their peers and readily participated.
This first of many committees decided matters such as when lights went on and
off, and patient conduct within the wards. The Ward Committee evolved to be
the main process for evolving the Unit’s rules and disciplinary process in
ensuring compliance with the rules. The
Ward Committee membership was typically isomorphic with the ward’s mix
relating to the merging of opposites. Typically, diabolically autocratic
people served along side people who displayed extreme tolerance and
passivity. Criminals often with a tough ‘no mercy’ attitude would serve with
the anxious over-controlled. This was another social context for working out
how to work together, and working this through created potential for all
involved to catch glimpses of a metaphoric normal person somewhere in the
middle. And then, ‘Yeh! I can do that!’ ‘We can work this out!’ Patient Administration
The other
early committee was a Parliamentary Committee that grew to be a committee
that governed the work of all other committees. Every member in every other
committee was automatically a member of the Parliamentary Committee. The
Pilot Committee was a ‘Committee of Review’ of the Parliament Committee.
Within a very short time, a number of patient-run
committees and work groups were set up that involved the patients themselves being
actively involved in making decisions and taking actions on every
aspect that normally would be the role of Fraser House administration people.
Neville evolved the Fraser House committee process
so that eventually the committees involved the Committees taking on aspects of all of the roles normally undertaken by staff. Imagine
psychiatric patients returning to everyday life with finely honed practical
skills in administering a complex organization having for example, over
13,000 outpatient visits a year. This is what happened. When they were back
in their community and learning to interact with people at say, the counter
in their local Child Endowment office, the patients typically had some
understanding about how bureaucracies worked through personal experience. The
structures and process of the committees were being continually fine-tuned.
Chapters 8 and 9 of Clark and Yeomans book (Clark and Yeomans 1969) contain a detailed description
of the patient committees at one point in time. Figure 04 below shows a
diagram from Clark and Yeoman’s book depicting Patient Committees and the staff
devolving their traditional roles to become healers. Diagram 2 Patient
committees and the staff devolving their traditional roles to become healers (Clark and
Yeomans 1969) The
respective roles that were devolved to the committees were, psychiatrist,
charge nurse, nurse, occupational therapist, social worker, and
administrator; these are depicted by the darker boxes. The various committees
that took on aspects of the foregoing roles are shown in the lighter boxes. All of the above committees were isomorphic with mainstream
administrative cleaving; even following the Federal Government’s
Parliamentary Review Committee (the Fraser House Pilot Committee) and using
the term ‘Parliamentary’ Committee’. This reframed matching by Neville of
mainstream structures and processes was a precursor of Neville’s 1999
Extegrity Program documentation specifying frameworks for bottom-up
grassroots self-organizing mutual-help towards reconstituting decimated
societies. This is discussed in Chapter Nine. Another
snapshot of the committee structure and process is in the Fraser House Staff
Handbook (Yeomans 1965). A further view is in Dr. N. M.
Mitchell’s monograph on the Committee Structure at Kenmore Hospital
Therapeutic Community in Goulburn (Mitchell 1964) held at the Kenmore Hospital Museum. Kenmore’s Therapeutic Community was modeled
on Fraser House. This is discussed in Chapter Seven. The New
Role For All Staff
In
this devolving, staff took on the enabling/mentoring roles in respect of the
patients taking over the staff’s administrative duties. This freed up all the
staff including the cleaners to be also supporters of self-healing and
mutual-healing by the patients and outpatients. The patients did the
cleaning, with cleaners in mentoring roles. Because the cleaners were
constantly present in the community during day work hours, they saw most of
what was going on. Aided by this, and by common agreement of patients and
staff, the cleaners were the most insightful community therapists after
the patients. This skilled therapeutic role of the patients and cleaning
staff was reported in the research, writing, and archives, and collaborated
by interviewees. Recall all staff attended Big Group – including the cleaners.
Some cleaners became very insightful therapists - the ‘onlooker seeing most
of the game’. On one occasion, mentioned by Neville in a conversation we had
in Yungaburra Queensland during December 1992, a cleaner spotted that a
catatonic women had drawn a beautiful horse in a moment of lucidity. The
cleaner mentioned about the catatonic’s drawing skills during a Big Group and
suggested that a drawing pad and colored pencil-set be left beside her so
that she may be prompted to stay lucid longer. This was done and the
catatonic patient did start to draw. To encourage her further, a full
painting kit was arranged to be place beside her. After a time a set of
poster colors in pots were set up and a nearby wall was designated as the
‘mural space’ and mentioned her name. In the end this patient came out of her
catatonia and painted beautiful big murals over a section of the Unit and
largely from this work. At one stage she was running out of walls to paint
and this coincided with word being received on the grapevine that a’ razor
gang’ would arrive that might recommend closing the Unit if it was deemed to
‘way out’. After discussion in Big Group about this impending inspection it
was agreed that everyone would help in painting over the murals and returning
the unit to white. When the inspectors arrived the staff where in their white
uniforms in a white unit. The inspectors saw little that was out of the
ordinary and okayed the Unit. After they left the mural painting resumed and
after a time this person was able to return to living in society. All
of the staff were entering into new territory at Fraser House. No one, including
Neville, had any prior experience
of facilitating the collective action therapy of patient self-governance, or
any of the other evolving aspects of Fraser House. No one had had
prior experience with Big Group, where all patients and outpatients at Fraser
House (around 180) joined with all staff on duty for one hour community
meetings (held twice a day on weekdays). Neville and none of the staff had
prior experience in therapeutic communities, or in being healers within daily
community life. Neville was one of the few on staff to have prior small group
therapy experience. Recall that he had been running groups for schizophrenics
in 1956. As stated previously, Fraser House was continually involved in
action research into its own unfolding processes. What worked was repeated.
What did not work so well was adapted, or dropped. There was a climate of
continual experimentation. No one outside of Fraser House had experience in
the above processes either. Balancing Governance
In
maintaining balance, the aim was to have equal numbers of females and males
on each committee. Endeavor was made to maintain an inter-generational mix.
Isolates were learning to re-socialize and form relationships with other
patients and outpatients. The Committee work required acquiring and using a
wide range of personal and interpersonal communicating skills. Participants
were encouraged to recognize and respect their own needs and those of others.
This is a reason why the committee work was called the ‘Re-socializing
Program’. Fraser House became a major center for learning group skills with
people from many Government, Academic and Non Government organizations
attending. Much of the training was done by patients. This is discussed in
Chapter Six. Endeavor
was also made firstly, to maintain a balance on Committees between
under-controlled/over-active people and over-controlled/under-active people,
and secondly, to include outpatients within the various committees. At one
stage their were eight patients and four outpatients on committees, that is,
twice as many patients (Yeomans
1965, Vol 2. p. 12). Also, patients were
encouraged to have balance between committee work and self-healing. Any
person ‘hiding’ from their own change-work by being too busy in committee
work soon had other patients pointing this out to them. If patients put
themselves forward for elections too earlier in their stay, patients and
staff alike would be suspicious of them being on a power trip or avoiding
personal change work and would challenge them about this or raise the issue
in Big or Small Groups. The same thing would apply to a person seeking to
serve on many committees. Flexible Rigidity
Paradoxically,
through the patient and outpatient Governance Programme the Unit became
increasingly flexible, although simultaneously, there was the making of
tightly detailed microscopic rules. In a 13 July 1999 conversation with
Neville, he stated that rules kept changing by refinement as necessary,
although often a set of rules would be collectively dumped if they turned out
to be non-functional. This paradoxical ‘increasing flexibility within tightly
detailed microscopic rules’ mirrored Neville’s
‘non-interventionist/interventionist and uninvolved-passive/totally involved’
leader stance. Action was a function of context. When things flowed, the
people involved engaged in the flow. When there were ‘hiccups’ or strife,
then rules would be swiftly invoked. As on the Yeomans’ farms, all action was
context driven, and what aspect, of what were often polar opposites, came
into play, was a function of the unfolding moment. The nanno-rules (very
detailed) were there constantly as a guide to action. Patient Treatment And Training
In 1965/6 it was
reported that patients were engaged in the following: ‘Assessing
and admitting new patients, reviewing progress, instituting treatment
procedures, making new rules and altering old rules and meting out discipline
(Yeomans
1965, Vol. 4 p. 17)’.
The
archival material, especially the Fraser House Handbook written by patients
to train new staff (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 4 p. 17-20,
50-54) and the
research interviews all support the view that patients became highly skilled
in carrying out their committee and other work. I have access to embargoed
Fraser House records that include some of the reports of the Initial
Assessment Committee. They read like they were written by an extremely
skilled, insightful and psychosocially-emotionally wise and discerning
psychiatrist. As the saying goes, ‘It takes one to know one’. A number of
case records were available for perusal along with the patient committee’s
initial assessment on the patient. It was also apparent that the insights in
the initial assessment were congruent with the dynamics that unfolded for
particular patients. Committees
of patients prescribed treatment. At first this may sound a bizarre and
dangerous notion. And yet all the reports in archival material and from
interviews with the psychiatrist, psychologists and a senior charge nurse
said the same thing - the patients quickly emerged as the most skillful in community therapy. Collectively they were way ahead of the professionally
trained psychiatrist, the trainee psychiatrists, the psychologists and ahead
of the nurse therapists. None of
their professional training had in any
way prepared them for community therapy enabling; in fact Fraser House became
the center for training psychiatrists in community psychiatry, with the patients
as the primary source of training. The Domiciliary Care Committee
Members of
the Domiciliary Care Committee started to do domiciliary visits on
ex-patients and outpatients, and to go on suicide crisis calls into the community
often late at night (Clark 1969, p. 69). Domiciliary Care is discussed in Chapter Five. Typically, five
patients would support each other in making visits to potential suiciders on
a twenty-four hour call-out basis. They would travel in the little red van
funded through the patient run Canteen – discussed below. This
capacity was made known to the wider community and this outreach was
frequently used by residents at the Gap on South Head in Sydney. Regrettably
this spot is frequently used by suiciders who jump from the high cliffs onto
the wave smashed rocks below. Once these residents knew of Fraser House
Suicide Outreach, they would phone Fraser House for assistance. A potential
suicider would suddenly be surrounded by five mental patients who were very
skilled in therapeutic social intercourse. They had an excellent track record
in getting potential suiciders to come back with them to Fraser House. This
is discussed further in Chapter Five. The following
letter was drafted by resident members of the Parliamentary Committee as an
aid to increasing involvement by family and friends. Neville arranged for a
copy to be placed in his collected papers in the Mitchell Library (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 2, p. 11). Fraser House The Psychiatric Center Cox Road North Ryde Dear As your
relative or friend is now a patient at Fraser House, it is now our common purpose
to do what we can towards the restoration of full mental health. We invite
you to come as often as you can to the groups, the function of which are to
enable all of us to find out the reasons why the breakdown has taken place,
so that we can all assist. There are in
the hospital a number of committees, because it is believed that the patients
and their relatives and friends can do most towards solving each other’s
problems. Groups are
held at 9:30AM each morning and at 6:30PM each evening. Tuesday and Thursday groups are set aside
for parents and relatives of the patients and Friday morning for general
business. If you would
like a group from here to call on you to advise or help you in any way, to
indicate what Hospital Benefits or social services are available, to explain
the groups to you, or to be of any other assistance you have only to ask and
a group of patients will be at your service. Will you
please write to me if there is anything we can do or any information we can
give. If you are
in distress about anything, would you ring Fraser House, phone 880 281 and
ask the charge nurse to give me your message. The
President Patients’ Parliamentary Committee. Notice
that this letter was sent by the patient who was the President of the peak
committee. Also note the inclusiveness of community therapy conveyed in the
second paragraph, and that support was readily available, ‘by a group of
patients’. They would come in their own red van. The Outpatients, Relatives And Friends Committee
Shared
travel was fostered by a committee called the Outpatients, Relatives and
Friends Committee, one of the patient-run committees under the Fraser House
Governance therapy/Resocializing Program. This Committee would arrange the
matching up of attendees at Big and Small Groups to maximize car-pooling and
people traveling together. Often people with very small family friendship
networks and poor social skills would be voted on to the Outpatients,
Relatives and Friends Committee to provide experience in social interaction. As a
consequence, these visitors and their associated Fraser House patient(s)
tended to obtain, through their involvement in Fraser House, a completely
revised and extended functional suburban
friendship/support network composed typically, of up to seventy people who they met through Fraser House. Recall that
typically, patients arrived at Fraser house having from two to seven
dysfunctional members of their family and ‘friends’ in their lives. Some who
had jobs had a workmate or two they had some social contact with. Constituting Rules And Constitutions
In involving patients
and outpatients in self governance Neville had them devise their own,
‘Patient’s Rules for Committees’ (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 2, p.6-12). Neville sent a letter of
congratulations to patients and outpatients on 17 Jan 1963 when they produced
this document, giving them ‘100% for effort’ (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 2, p. 13). A monograph prepared by patients
and outpatients was, ‘The Constitution of the Fraser House Relatives and
Friends Group’ (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 2, p. 50-60). Patients and outpatients in other
Committees devised their own constitution. All of this was for Neville, part
of the Communities creating a social system of law for the Unit from within
the lore of their own constituting. The Roles of the Patient Committees
Appendix 4 outlines all the various patient committees at a
particular point in time. They were constantly being reviewed/changed,
including which staff function was devolved to each committee, the roles of
each committee, the membership of each committee, including membership
criteria, the split between in-patient and outpatient membership, and the
staff present at each committee meeting. Reading Appendix 4 now may give a
feel for the totality and completeness that Margaret Mead, the
anthropologist, spoke of when describing Fraser House as the most Total therapeutic community she had
ever been to. Patients
were very mad and bad. In going onto committees they could be moving in and
out of their dysfunction(s) (psychosis or episodes of schizophrenia and the
like). Patients did what they could, depending on the state of their being-in-the-world
on the day. We return to this later. The Canteen And The Little Red Van
The
idea of having a patient run canteen was first discussed by the Ward Welfare
Committee in July 1960. This was reported in a Unit File Note now contained
in Neville’s Collected papers (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 5,
p. 30). The possibility of a
canteen was raised because of the news that the Female Ward was about to
open. This meant that extra funds would be needed to meet the expanding
welfare needs of patients. As well, the canteen could provide snacks for the
breaks between Big Groups and Small Groups. The only way to meet welfare
needs up to this time had been by way of raffles. However, insufficient money
was being raised. In September 1960 a definite decision was made by the Ward
Committee to approach the patients on the idea of a canteen. The proposal was
placed before all the patients of the whole Male Ward during Big Group. It
was passed with unanimous approval. Dr. Barclay the head of North Ryde
Hospital was approached. He approved the idea with the following provisos.
All goods received had to be on a C.O.D basis. There was to be no
long-standing accounts. A bookkeeping system had to be set up. Finally, the
canteen would possibly have to cease if there were any major troubles, or if
a hospital canteen opened. These conditions were accepted. In fact, each of
these provisos had therapeutic value. The canteen was fully owned and
controlled by the patients and the profits could be used at their discretion.
Patients involved in running and administrating the canteen learned valuable
life and social skills and response abilities. It provided a number of
opportunities for ‘work as therapy’. It meant that patients learned
responsible financial and other management skills. None of the administration
money of the hospital was used. It was totally set up and funded by the
patients. The canteen
was opened with £12 from funds available in the patient welfare kitty and a
£53 loan from a patient committee member. Profits of the canteen funded the
purchase of a little red van and money for fuel and maintenance. With between
10,000 and 13,000 outpatient visits and many hundreds of guests a year, the
canteen had a steady stream of customers. As mentioned, the van was used by
the patients in their suicide and crisis call out actions. Additionally, the
patients used this van to go on domiciliary visits to ex-patients and
outpatients. This will be discussed below. It was generally
understood in the mainstream system that the administration of a mental
hospital could have detrimental effects, and to counter this, in mainstream
hospitals some attempts would be made to ‘make things nice’. As we have seen
above, in the devolving of administration to the patients in Fraser House,
Neville used the patients’ involvement in administrating and organizing the
Unit as an opportunity for them to learn by living and surviving all the work
that this entailed. Fraser House ‘Administration therapy’ as the name implies
used learning how to administer a major hospital as a therapeutic process.
Patients and Outpatients also had opportunity to learn that fault, if it be
called that, was not theirs, but a part of a ‘disorganized’ and ‘conflicted’
Fraser House system. For example, the Canteen was ‘delegated’ - through
voting by patient and staff, and by common understanding - to those who were not able to do it, though capable of
learning - so everyone could support them till they could learn to do it. Photo 5 Allocating the
job to those who can’t do it Photo 6 Increasing
confidence The two
photo above were taken at ConFest – discussed in Chapter Eight. The canteen
was a continual source of claims and counter-claims about theft and
mismanagement. The mess was therapeutically valuable and this was commonly
understood by all involved in Fraser House. It is another example of P. A.
Yeomans use of opposites and reversals.
As
mentioned, Neville and others called this committee related activity by the
patients and outpatients, ‘governance therapy’. This participation in
democracy is resonant with aspects of the worker participation and worker
democracy of E. L. Trist and Fred Emery of the Tavistock Institute in the
United Kingdom (Emery, Thorsrud et al.
1969). Alfred Clark the head
of the Fraser House External Research Group went and worked with Trist at the
Tavistock Institute after leaving Fraser House (Brown 1960; Emery 1966). Saying ‘No’ And Undercontrolled Auditors
As an example
of governance therapy in action, a person who had been elected to work in the
canteen wanted to resign because some patients were asking him to break the
rules and he could not say ‘no’ (Yeomans 1965, Vol. 5, p. 34). At the same time he would get
very disturbed and angry. The consensus in the group discussion about this
was that it was very much in his interest to learn to say ‘no’ without
becoming disturbed. It was in his interest to stay working in the canteen and
face this problem. He did stay on. He worked through this issue in group
discussions and in his canteen work experience till it was resolved. In a similar
vane, an embezzler was knowingly elected to the Canteen Committee and, true
to form, embezzled money. His actions, and their consequences for everyone
provided a potent context for change work during both Big Group and Small
Groups. I do not know the circumstances, however imagine having an
under-controlled auditor who was a homicidal maniac supported by a few who
could restrain the auditor when he was making his points to the embezzler too
strongly! Matters to do with the canteen were a constant generator of extreme
emotional passion in Big Group. It was well known that this continual
therapeutic struggle amongst canteen workers was also the source of funding
for the patients’ domiciliary and other outreach work which patients and
outpatients were committed to, and highly valued. Letting Life Act Through Them
Neville set up
processes whereby responsibility for, and the activity of healing was taken
on by the Fraser House community as a whole - that is both staff and
patients. Patients had to regularly make choices and decisions and carry the
responsibility that this entailed. Neville set up highly specified, though
very flexible processes and practices that the community as ‘community’ then
evolved together. A central component was freeing up emotional and gut
feelings while sharing community. The healing came from ‘letting life act
through them’. It was the persistent sorting out of how mad and bad people
could live well with each other. Traces of the Social
Activities Committee’s energy is contained in their set of accounts which
includes expenditure for boat hire during a picnic, taxis to the picnic,
cartoon hire, rail freight for film, and cake mix. They sold the cakes and
made a small profit (Yeomans 1965, Vol 2 p. 79). Each committee handling money was required
to keep financial accounts, records and to present these accounts regularly
to the Parliamentary Committee. This activity enabled patients to gain
experience in budgeting and financial management of their own finances. Neville
pioneered patient committees in the mental health context within Australia;
while patient committees are frequently used today, this was unheard of in
1959. Neville did have the support of a person high in the Health Department
who helped Neville survive when psychiatrists and others questioned what he
was doing. This will be discussed later. REFLECTIONS
This Chapter
has discussed Fraser House locality, cultural locality, layout and sourcing
of patients. The Unit’s milieu as a Therapeutic Community was discussed and
patient self-governance and law/rule making via patient committees was
outlined. In the Fraser House Governance Therapy, Neville was evolving praxis
towards folk community reconstituting their local lore and law as a vital
aspect of reconstituting collapsed societies and evolving folk based
transitions towards a caring new epoch (Yeomans 1971b; Yeomans
1974; Yeomans 1999). This is discussed in
Chapter Ten. (1960,
February 14). Alcoholics and Neurotics Mingle. Sunday Telegraph Newspaper. (1962). NSW Lifts the Aboriginals
Status - Freedom in Ryde Clinic. Daily Mirror. Sydney. Assagioli, R. (1971). Psychosynthesis
: a manual of principles and techniques. New York, Viking. Bandler, R., J. Grinder, et al.
(1976). Changing with families : a book about further education for being
human. Palo Alto, Calif., Science and Behavior Books. Bandler, R., J. Grinder, et al.
(1979). Frogs into princes : neuro linguistic programming. Moab, Utah,
Real People Press. Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann
(1967). The Social Construction of Reality : A Treatise on the Sociology
of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday. Brown, W. (1960). Explorations in
Management. London:, Heinemann. Buckminster Fuller, R. (1961).
"Tensegrity - Internet Source - http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/rbfnotes/fpapers/tensegrity/tenseg01.html." Capra, F. (1997). The Web of Life
- A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. London, Harper Collins. Cawte, A. (1974). Medicine is the
Law - Studies in Psychiatric Anthropology of Australian Tribal Societies.
Adelaide, Rigby. Cawte, J. (2001, (First edition -
1996)). Healers of Arnhem Land. Marleston, SA, J.B. Books. Clark, A. W. (1969). Theory and
Evaluation of a Therapeutic Community - Fraser House. University of NSW
PhD Dissertation. Sydney. Clark, A. W. and N. T. Yeomans
(1969). Fraser House - Theory, Practice and Evaluation of a Therapeutic
Community. New York, Springer Pub Co. Davis, S. M. and C. Meyer (1999). Blur
: the Speed of Change in the Connected Economy. Oxford, Capstone. Emery, F. E. (1966). Democratization of the Workplace: a
Historical Review of Studies. London, Tavistock Institute of human Relations
Doc. No. T.813. Emery, F. E., E. Thorsrud, et al.
(1969). Form and content in industrial democracy: some experiences from
Norway and other European countries. London,, Tavistock Publications. Fraser House Follow-up Committee of
Patients (1963). Follow-up Committee Statement of Receipts and Expenditure -
31 March 1963. Neville T. Yeomans Collected Papers 1965, Vol. 2, p.79.
Sydney. Hanlon, W. D. (1987). Taproots:
Underlying Principles of Milton Erickson's Therapy and Hypnosis. London,
W.W. Norton & Co. Kutena, Z. (2002). Personal
Discussion Relating to the Concept 'Cultural Locality'. L. Spencer. Sydney. Mitchell, D. N. M. (1964). The
Establishment and Structure of Kenmore Therapeutic Community. Goulburn,
Kenmore Hospital. Pascale, R. T., M. Millemann, et al.
(2000). Surfing the Edge of Chaos - The Laws of Nature and the New Laws of
Business. London, Texere Publishing. Porter, E., H. (1913).
"Pollyanna - Internet Source - http://www.classicreader.com/booktoc.php/sid.3/bookid.1368/." Pugh, A. (1976). An introduction
to tensegrity. Berkeley, University of California Press. Queensland Community Arts Network
(2002). "Queensland Community Arts Network - Internet Source - http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:ee0mcDfNYaMC:www.qldcan.org.au/shell/library/gllib.html+pacin+cultural+healing+action&hl=en&ie=UTF-8." Rose, S. (19XX). The Conscious
Brain. Unknown, Unknown. Rose, S. (1976). The Conscious
Brain - Revised Edition. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Rose, S. (2002). A Discussion on
Rose's Book 'The Conscious Brain' - Radio Interview broadcast on the
Australian ABC Science Show on Saturday 29 June 2002. Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemaking.
Palo Alto, Calif., Science and Behavior Books. Satir, V. (1983). Conjoint family
therapy. Palo Alto, Calif, Science and Behavior Books. Satir, V. (1988). The new
peoplemaking. Mountain View, Calif., Science and Behavior Books. Senge, P. (1992). The Fifth
Discipline - The Art and Practice of
the Learning Organization. Australia, Random House. Tönnies, F. and C. P. Loomis (1963).
Community & society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). New York,
Harper & Row. Wilson, P. (1990). A Life of
Crime. Newham, Victoria, Scribe. Yeomans, N. T. (1961). "Notes
on a Therapeutic Community Part 1 Preliminary Report." Medical
Journal of Australia Vol 48 (2). Yeomans, N. T. (1961). "Notes
on a Therapeutic Community Part 2." Medical Journal of Australia Vol 48 (2). Yeomans, N. T. (1965). Collected
Papers on Fraser House and Related Healing Gatherings and Festivals -
Mitchell Library Archives, State Library of New South Wales. Yeomans, N. T. (1965). Collection of
Newspaper Clippings, Letters and Notices. Dr. Neville Yeomans Collection
of Newspaper Writings. Sydney. Yeomans, N. T. (1965). The
Psychiatrist's Responsibility for the Criminal, the Delinquent, the
Psychopath and the Alcoholic. Neville T. Yeomans Collected Papers 1965,
Vol. 12, p. 50. Sydney. Yeomans, N. T. (1965).
Sociotherapeutic Attitudes to Institutions - Paper Presented at the State
Psychiatric Services Clinicians' Conference - 22 April 1963. Neville T.
Yeomans Collected Papers 1965, Vol. 12, p. 46, 60-61. Sydney. Yeomans, N. T. (1966). Collective
Therapy - Audience and Crowd - Australian Journal of Social Issues 2. 4. Neville
T. Yeomans Collected Papers 1965,Vol. 1, p,187-188, Vol.12, p. 77, 87.
Sydney. Yeomans, N. T. (1967). A Community Developers'
Thoughts on the Fraser House Crisis - 24 February 1967. Neville T. Yeomans
Collected Papers 1965, Vol. 2, p. 46 - 48. Sydney. Yeomans, N. T. (1971b). Mental
Health and Social Change - http://www.laceweb.org.au/mhs.htm.
Collected Papers. Mitchell Library. Sydney: 295. Yeomans, N. T. (1974). On Global
Reform and International Normative Model Areas (Inma) - Internet Source -
http:www.laceweb.org.au/gri.htm. Yeomans, N. T. (1999). Extegrity -
Guidelines for Joint Partner Proposal Application -Facilitation of Indigenous
and/or disadvantaged small minority Psycho-Cultural Healing, Humanitarian
Law, and Humane Democracy - Internet Source - http://www.laceweb.org.au/ext.htm.. Yeomans, N. T. and L. Spencer
(1993). Cultural Healing Action - Internet Source - http://www.laceweb.org.au/cha.htm.
|