As we’ve seen thus far, the primary focus of a crisis interventionist is to ensure the safety of all involved in the crisis situation. We’ve examined the theories, models, and strategies necessary to intervene successfully in a crisis, as well as examined the essential characteristics of crisis intervention workers. Next, we will review the specific dynamics of crisis case handling.Abraham Maslow (1970) wrote concerning a hierarchy of needs. Meeting the basic physical needs of food, clothing, and shelter were first on his list. This is an important concept, particularly in the field of crisis intervention. According to Gilliland and James (2013) “paramount in psychological first aid is attending to Maslow’s needs hierarchy and taking care of survival needs first”. Many counselors, social workers and psychologists helped meet basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and other survival needs during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina before they did any counseling” (p. 19).Using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a reference, explain why you feel it’s important to have an understanding of this hierarchy in relation to the field of crisis intervention. Predict some of the pitfalls even experienced crisis workers could fall into without knowledge of basic human needs when intervening on a client’s behalf.
Casteism. He said ‘I. therefore, appeal to you to act and utilize what little political power is coming into your hands. If you are indifferent and do not try to use it properly, your worries will have no end. Fear lurks in mind that the slavery, which we are fighting out, may overtake us again. Will this awakening of ours be short-lived’?. (Keer, Dhananjaya, p. 211) Therefore he sought for a separate treatment of the Dalits in free India. He wanted the provision of separate settlements for the Untouchables. He argued that the Untouchables were a separate element in the national life of India. In order to do justice to those who have denied of land, water, food, equality of treatment, Ambedkar stressed the need of separate electorates in the politically free India. Provision of separate electorates is meant to provide them separate accessibility to political and social power, which has been systematically denied in the caste Social order. However, the national congress leaders like Gandhi and few others did not understand him properly. Gandhi blamed Ambedkar on the ground that Ambedkar argues for ‘separatism’ as against the ‘unity of Hindu culture’. This was totally a misapprehension of the concept of social justice. Moreover, as a leader of a popular party, Congress, Gandhi wanted the ‘vote bank’ namely the numerical strength of the untouchable population to remain linked to Hindu Social order in spite that they were being treated as sub humans occupying the lowest strata of Indian society. Therefore Ambedkar’ s struggle for separate electorates and separate settlement was fully opposed by Gandhi and his congress followers. Gandhi went to the extent of ‘fast unto death’ at Poona for the sake of withdrawal of Ambedkar’s demand for a separate electorate. Such was the misunderstanding of Gandhi with respect to the notion of Justice and equality. In a specific sense, Ambedkar was forced to withdraw his demand for the separate electorates because, if Ambedkar had pressed further his demand, it would have meant death to Gandhi, the popular leader of the Congress, and as a result, great upheaval in the country. People like Nehru persuaded Ambedkar to suspend his demand for a separate electorate. The backdrop of this historical event however has its implications. It implies that while Ambedkar’s approach to justice is both historical and social, the Gandhian and congress approach to justice is merely reformatory and politically motivated in favour of the caste-powered people. Political Democracy is Primarily a Social Democracy For Ambedkar political democracy is interlinked with social democracy. If social democracy>GET ANSWER Let’s block ads! (Why?)