Man appears to be adapted to react to
changes in his environment in such a way that appropriate mechanisms, designed
to prepare him for coping with danger, are automatically initiated when he is
threatened. This physiological reaction which has been termed the 'fight or
flight' (Selye 1976) response 'helped our ancestors to survive by making them
fit' (Gregory 1987) to respond to any perceived threat. The physiological
responses are measurable and hence they are now clearly understood: for
example, 'we can show how psychological processes are reflected in the
activity of the brain, in cardiovascular functions, in hormonal activity'
(Ibid).
The General Adaptive Syndrome, a
hypothesis proposed by Hans Seyle, gives a breakdown of the reactions which
form the fight or flight response. The body enters the 'stress reaction
through a chain of events that begins with the reception of stimulation by the
senses and the forwarding of this information to areas of the brain designated
to react to it' (Lynn 1997). The physiological results of this stimulation
include stored sugar released into the bloodstream, increased heart rate,
increased rate of breathing, muscles becoming tense, increased perspiration,
increased salivation, muscle tension and hyper-alertness. The body therefore,
via this physical reaction, makes available additional resources, which may be
called upon by an individual caught up in some dangerous situation. He is
ready for action; whichever decision - fight or flight - is made.
In mechanical terms, stress and its
effects have been succinctly described by the eminent mechanical engineer
Hooke. When a system, or body, is subjected to forces in opposition, there are
two components of physical deformation which will result: firstly there is an
elastic deformation of the system and secondly there is a plastic deformation.
Elastic deformation is that mechanical movement, the kinetic energy of which
is entirely absorbed by the system, and which is reversible once the forces
have been removed; whereas plastic deformation is physical strain, and it
results in permanent damage. The ratio of elastic to plastic deformation
depends upon the material and the system, or body, which has been subjected to
the stress.
That this mechanical explanation
provides a useful analogy for the condition of psychological stress has been
recognised by Cox (1978). He explains that 'this analogy suggests that, just
as physical systems have an elastic limit, people have some built-in
resistance to stress. Up to a point, stress can be tolerated, but when it
becomes intolerable permanent damage, physiological and psychological, may
result'. Hamberger and Lohr (1984) suggest that physical illness is likely to
be the consequential physiological damage which may result: their proposal is
that the 'ultimate outcome of the stress response is fatigue and illness'.
The analogy of stress with Hookes Law in
mechanical systems makes the assumption that stress is a reaction of the
system to external forces or stressors; and that strain or its parallel,
physical illness, is equivalent to the resultant plastic deformation. However,
there is an alternative view that stress exists not within the environment,
that is to say as an external factor, but only within the individual. Mikhail
(1981) says that stress is 'a state which arises from an actual or
perceived demand-capability imbalance'- my italics. In this alternative
model, the role of perception cannot be overstated because for any given
situation, it is entirely the perception of the individual which becomes
responsible for the resultant stress which is set up within the system.
Whichever is the case, and indeed even
if the objective truth lies somewhere between these two positions, there
appears to be an abundance of scientific evidence suggesting that stress is
related to, and indeed may actually be the cause of many diverse medical
conditions. A few examples taken from recent scientific journals are
reproduced here to illustrate the point: a recent study (Circulation
1997) suggests the existence of a link between stress and increased risk of
heart disease; a report by Dr Alfred Sapse notes that the link between
retinitis pigmentosa and 'the stress hormone cortisol has been shown more
clearly' (Sapse 1997); researchers have found that 'high stress levels result
in lowered sperm counts in men' (Endocrinology 1997); a further study
proposes that teenage alcohol abuse may be stress related (American Academy
of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry1997).
The list of possible medical conditions
which may be related to stress appears to be almost endless; but perhaps the
following brief extract from one further report concerning American soldiers
who were veterans of the Vietnam war sums up current medical thinking. It
noted that war veterans who were also diagnosed as suffering from
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were fifty to one hundred and fifty
percent 'more likely to suffer from circulatory, digestive, musculoskeletal,
respiratory, infectious and other serious diseases than non-PTSD veterans' (Psychosomatic
Medicine 1997).
However, as Dr Oliver Sacks has said, 'a
disease is never a mere loss or excess ... there is always a reaction on the
part of the affected organism or individual to restore, to replace, to
compensate for and to preserve its identity, however strange the means may be'
(Lynn 1997). In other words, the stress-induced condition, or illness itself,
may be viewed as part of the body's protection mechanism. In fact, Hans Seyle
himself, 'made it clear that stress is a natural protective reaction' (Ibid).
Analysis of the role stress plays in
relation to the specific problems of Attention Different Children has led
George Lynn to propose that a clear understanding of the stress model is
fundamental to successful treatment. 'The beauty of this way of looking at the
problematic behaviours of Attention Different Children' he comments, 'is that
the stress model also points the way to what we need to do to help the child
heal'. He says that the key to the successful treatment of these problematic
children is to help them build up their stress-hardiness.
Lynn comments on the work of Maddi and
Kobasa at the University of Chicago in 1979 in which they studied people who
stayed healthy despite the stress they experienced as part of their lives.
Looking for common factors, he cites three which he says are important in
stress tolerance. Firstly, these individuals had support from others: they
felt loved and also had an outlet for the giving of love. Secondly, they felt
in control of the situation and had adopted coping strategies which helped to
develop more self-control. Finally, it seems that most of these
stress-resistant people felt a sense of purpose in living out their lives.
It may be that many, extremely simple
and yet highly effective treatments could be developed which will take these
findings into account. Recently, researchers from the University of Miami have
found that children who receive regular massages from their parents 'may
experience significant health benefits'. They found that, amongst significant
other benefits, children who received a fifteen to twenty minute massage for a
period of thirty days 'showed decreases in anxiety and stress hormone levels
(Touch Research Institues 1997). This uncomplicated treatment certainly
incorporates the first two of the three factors highlighted by Lynn.
As for his third factor, the importance
of purpose in life, it holds special irony. It was the 'teacher' of
Ecclesiastes, said to have been the wisest man ever to have lived, who
recognised the futility of human endeavour. Soloman, it appears, failed to
find purpose within human endeavour and so proposed that 'all is vanity' or
'futility' as the word may be correctly, if less poetically rendered; a kind
of 'chasing after the wind'. His logic leads him to conclude that whilst
short-term goals may appear to be worthwhile for their own sake, in the final
analysis, they do not constitute a purpose for living.
Man's purpose, according to Soloman, is
to 'fear God and keep his commandments' (Eccles. 12): the popular,
alternative view is that life has no purpose. This enigma remains at the very
heart of the great question relating to man's existence. Here, we must simply
be content to reflect upon the proposition, on the one hand, that death is
annihilation and therefore is also the complete release of the individual from
all human ailments; or, on the other hand, simply the beginning of one great,
and wonderfully stressful adventure.
