Today was supposed tpo have been the next appointment with Fedcap employment. It didn't happen. Unforeseen circumstances was the reason given. No further explanation. This is now the third failed appointment, even if the majority have been for genuine (health) reasons, on the part of my advisor. Honestly, perhaps even unfairly, I am not impressed.
I have asked to be assigned a different advisor, which is happening. But to be honest, there was no rapport with whom I had been with until today. I see no point continuing if that's going to be the case. You have to have someone you are confident with. Perhaps it's much to ask, but someone that's inspirational and warm. I've no idea about her personally, or whether she has a glittering track record as an advisor. I don't really care. I'm not going to be working with her anymore, there was nothing to work with. TO be fair, given the times we're in, some slack must be given. That's fine, but then, what's the point?
While searching for their course details, so I could email them and ask for a different advisor, I came across this testimonial on their website. I thought I might dissect it here. I have no idea who Bryan is, and if Fedcap has genuinely helped him, then that's great. I'm not interested in denying positive experiences, but everyone's circumstances are not the same and one of the problems of schemes like this is the assumption that one size fits all because the consequence is that you get blamed if things don't work out. You're either failing to engage or not being honest. This is because these organisations are incapable of a broader social analysis, one taking into account the balance of power between groups within society. One that has an understanding of class relations, something so vital. Also, it is important to understand the nature of these testimonials and the language dployed.
There's a problem right away; The headline claims Bryan has secured a job. However the article says that he only managed to secure a temporary work experience placement. There is no indication as to whether this did lead to full employment, what the job was, whether he was even paid (I hope so!). Times like this are going to be rough; even if he did get that job where is he now? This article was written in October. Things are much worse now, two lockdowns hence. There is, sadly, every chance he has lost his job, if he had one. We don't know. I'm not sure why they wouldn't share more details if the outcome was as positive as they claim, so my feeling is that it wasn't a full time work. Instead they will claim it had other positive benefits. That may be true, but we'll see how long those last when he hasn't got a wage and is still dependent on the DWP.
This article caught my eye for two reasons; firstly Bryan is on the spectrum. That speaks to my experience even though it is extremely unlikely I will ever get the chance at a second, proper, diagnosis. That is something I am just going to have to live with. Secondly, the advisor, Lorraine, has the same name as the one I was seeing. Now that may be coincidence, but I choose to believe otherwise. Even if it's another, their performance ought to be similar.
Bryan was referred to a specialist, within the service (presumably); Sophie (don't know her) who is an "occupational inclusion specialist". This term is new to me. As far as I can tell it's a fancy term for a work coach. So no different than bog standard Jobcentre personnel, it seems. This is the description of someone who has this job within the same company. No idea who they are either; I found this by googling the term:
"Experienced Administrator with a demonstrated history of working in the professional training & coaching industry. Skilled in Customer Service, Performance Management, Employee Training, Time Management, and Leadership Development. Strong information technology professional graduated from Sutton centre academy ."
A typically long winded way of saying 'work coach'. It doesn't scream specialist to me, in perhaps the same way that being an 'occupational therapist' does, for instance. Make of that what you will, but it speaks to just how these companies big up themselves in articles like this. Already we have doubts as to how their client fared, now we have over inflated hyperbole to describe bog standard work coaching. These phrases also morph and mutate over time and keeping up with it all is exhausting.
The essence of my problem with this article is encapulated in this opening sentence:
"Bryan was diagnosed with Asperger’s which affects his confidence and he struggles with routines and adapting to new ones. "
This seems to diminish a condition that is life long and, to whatever degree, all encompassing. It informs how you interact with and see the world. It isn't merely an issue of 'confidence', but work coaches love to talk about confidence building. Everything gets reduced to this simplistic approach. While it is important, it isn't the simple solution: just make Bryan feel more confidence and he will be a success - as defined by your organisation. Aspergers isn't an illness and it shouldn't be seen as a negative thing, it is just that Aspies are different. The only reason that's a problem (for the most part) is because our society wants people to operate a certain way; to play specific roles with specific interactions etc. Now obviously a full explanation and examination of the neuro diverse experience is beyond this article, but then isn't that the point? You can't just reduce it down to mere 'confidence building'. that's patronising and unhelpful. I've spoken with work coach types that espouse that. It's not enough because it doesn't address the individual's place in the social order, nor the nature of that society and how it operates (including economically, since people need to procure essentials).
The last point I will make is about the language used. Language is important, it is able to control and shape the discourse. This is all the more potent and important when the relationship between speaker and listener is hierarchical, as it is between work coach and benefit claimant. There is a power differential, which is what makes the integrity of that relationship all the more vital. If there is no trust, no warmth, no rapport, then I don't think it can work. When I talk about their portrayal of aspergers I'm referring to this sentence, for example:
"Lorraine referred him to occupational inclusion specialist, Sophie to help him with his health and wellbeing barriers. "
Not only does this traduce the lived experience of a cognitive makeup, one's entire psychology, but it commodifies it. Packaging it up into something they, hopefully, can deal with. Something that can be sold to those they work for and those they aspire to help. "Health and wellbeing", like confidence, become products. Things that can be used to achieve the desired result. Your history, experience, yoru entire relationship with society and everything within it ("but the sun is eclipsed by the moon"), are reduced to this entity; this language that has a currency within the political ecosphere. It's about wellness/wellbeing. It's about removing 'barriers'. Aspergers isn't a thing you (can) cure, nor should it be because there is nothing wrong with you if you have it. It's like the fit notes the government created out of the old sick notes; by focusing on what it is perceived you can do, we can ignore what you can't do.
Orwell would be proud.
And everything under the sun is in tune, but the sun is eclipsed by the moon.
No comments:
Post a Comment