Personal Narratives and Mutual Constitution Social Policy - Case Study Example

Laura Garnetts narrative offers us a wonderful opportunity in explicating the personal, in terms of an individual perspective. The analogy the narrator relates to begin with – that of layers – is interesting inasmuch as the same fits the bill perfectly when trying to understand the concept of the personal from the given narrative. Firstly, an element of frustration at the level of the personal can be identified, when looking at Garnetts original educational training in the social sciences, and what direction that would purportedly give to her life. Admittedly, Garnett recalls how she was not thrilled by the prospect of working “with paper, ideas and (spending) a lot of time in libraries and that sort of thing.” It is evident, here, that the personal does not merely operate as an insulated realm, and the narrators dissatisfaction is indicative of the same. This brings us to a second identification of the personal in Garnetts narrative. Garnett identified three possible alternatives to her fumbling career in the social sciences: becoming a primary school teacher, a plumber or a doctor. In her perception, these three exclusive categories (exclusive, in general) would allow her to “work with people directly”, in their capacities as students, parents, patients, etc. Thirdly, the personal, in the narrative, can also be located in the identification with two movements in the greater societal context – the womens health movement and the increasing number of women taking up “manual trades”. This location is drawn from Higgins point that we must consider the personal in light of the underlying socio-historical context. (Course Companion, Ch. 1, p. 22) Fourthly, the personal can also be identified at the level of experience (and perceptions developed from them). Garnetts “run-ins” with doctors had evidently engendered enough of a distaste so as to believe that she “couldnt do it any worse”. Moreover, the long-term illness of her father had armed her with a practical understanding of the vocation which she finally chose. In either respect, her experience partly governed her choice, at the level of the personal, to move from the social sciences to medicine. Moreover, her experiences helped to tide over any initial doubts she may have had, given the dearth of any history in the medical profession running in her family prior to her own generation. This demonstrates an “excess” in the movement towards a career which was novel, and driven not by the passions of the particular vocation, but by a wider sense of belonging and contentment. (Course Companion, Ch. 1, p. 22) Fifthly, the personal can be identified in some of the boundaries that Garnett consciously draws. Excluding the prefix of “Doctor” in official documents such as her cheque books and passport seem to indicate that she tries to separate her personal and professional identities, in order that neither overwhelms the other and a semblance of balance retained. Though Garnett claims this tendency (or “fantasy”) to be “ambivalent”, this behavior not very different from that exhibited by individuals across society. In fact, this ambivalence ties in very well with Higgins first observation that the personal often emits a character or condition which is similar to many others. (Course Companion, Ch. 1, p. 22) Sixthly, the narrative provides several clues to the identification of the personal with perceptions. This is best evidenced in the example of the vacation in Turkey taken by Garnett; she refers to the country as “beautiful” and “historically interesting”. However, her experience with her Turkish and Kurdish patients, and their stories of the many atrocities faced by the Kurdish community in Turkey changed her personal perception of the nation. Also, the personals identification with perceptions stretches to the earlier points about Garnetts “run-ins” with doctors. These psychoanalytic factors provide for yet another identification of the personal in the given narrative, and help us to see how the narrator relates to the external world. (Course Companion, Ch. 1, p. 23) Finally, we find the reference to Garnetts class position, which also gives us a link to the personal in this context. The narrator admits that she could readily perceive herself belonging to “quite a privileged class position”, and going on to make use of the same in joining the medical profession. This admission may be seen to operationalize a reverse dynamic to her initial “subject position”. (Course Companion, Ch. 1, p. 23) Garnetts designation to her earlier position as an academic (in the social sciences), and her own intransigence in relation to the same, generated a contrary pull, leading her out of academia and into medicine. Thus, we can identify several “layers” of the personal in Garnetts narrative, all of which help us to formulate our understanding of the “mutual constitution” of the personal and social policy. We now proceed to investigate this mutuality, as expresses by (or extrapolated from) the narrative itself. As is evident from the above discussion, the ideas, or the essence, of the personal and social policy are reinforced by each other. Our exploration of the narrative allows us to understand that there remain several veritable cleavages where both ones personal life and societal relations coincide to provide a framework where neither is extricable. This brings us to an appreciation of the “mutual constitution” of personal lives and social policy. Not only must we heed the fact that one can flow into, or from, the other, but we must also be mindful of the fact that that we hold to be personal, or relevant only to the level of the individual, is likely to be a generally exhibited pattern, and the same may play an important role in policy-making. Furthermore, it is impossible to remove the individual from the collective setting of social existence, and ones emotions, thoughts and behavior form part of a greater collective environment, where the same are tempered by everyday interactions and the experience drawn from support systems which inhere in social relations. The personal, in this regard, gains a much wider perspective, increasing the scope of its relevance in terms of social policy. As noted above, Garnetts narrative amply demonstrates the “mutual constitution” of the personal and social policy, and the following paragraphs would seek to explore these linkages. To begin with, the eventual reevaluation of the narrators subject position and her choice to move into a vocation which allowed greater interactions with people shows that Garnetts decisions at the level of the personal were guided to a large extent by considerations of the social. The attraction of working intimately with people sounds Garnetts affinity for social settings and brings to light the coincidence of the personal with the social in this regard. It is almost as though the social setting which invites her, and not the vocation. This decision was also reinforced by a wider social context of the womens health movement and a gradually increasing trend of women in manual trades. This, again, illustrates the mutually constitutive character of the personal (in behavior or choice) and social policy (political movements and economic trends). Again, this shift informs us of another constitutive character of the two dynamics: Garnetts encounters with doctors and her own experiences leading to her choice of profession shows us how intimate, personal interactions in social settings and contexts have a bearing on personal decision-making processes. Garnetts societal role, as a doctor, was influenced by these interactions, as much as it was by her childhood experiences. Also, the mutual constitution is evident in Garnetts earlier career in the social sciences. The perseverance displayed by the narrator in pursuing the same till her “late twenties” demonstrates how the social can sometimes appear overbearing upon the personal. Garnett admittedly “drifted into” her earlier vocation, but the sense one perceives from the narrative is that it was more the social context which motivated her actions and her persistence, and here it is, thus, possible to point to the mutually reinforcing character of the personal and social policy. Perhaps the “organic” selection of the medical profession was may also be attributed to the mutual constitution in question. That Garnett chose to be a doctor, a decision which was able to tide over her other preferences – of becoming either a school teacher or a plumber – could also be placed in the cleavage of the personal and the social. Given her “privileged class position”, Garnett felt that medicine provided an apt opportunity to rejuvenate her career. Furthermore, a illustration of the mutual constitution of the personal and social policy comes from the “ambivalent relationship” displayed by Garnett in trying to maintain a divide between her personal identity, and her identity as a doctor. She goes on to note that her profession “probably defines” her personality more than she would wish to acknowledge, and her efforts to separate the two aspects of her life demonstrates how much the personal is intertwined with social policy. Moreover, even if one were slightly removed from a particular social setting, events thereof could still make for changes in ones personal perception of the setting. This is demonstrated by the narrators thoughts on Turkey, and the change which was incorporated into the same, upon social interactions with Kurdish patients. This, and the above points, thus, illustrates the mutual constitution of the personal and social policy remarkably well. References: Study Guide, Personal Lives and Social Policy, DD305, The Open University Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA United Kingdom Course Companion, Personal Lives and Social Policy, DD305, The Open University Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA United Kingdom Read More