Introduction
The postulates of the formal theory never change from the perspective of their relation to the world. In this way, regardless of a situation under consideration, the theory for explaining it is always the same. So, it is complicated to apply basic theory to a dynamically changing behavior and explaining modern crises because of its non-movement. Therefore, the opportunities for interpreting behaviors and crises are static and limited because there is only one viable explanation of the world and no other interpretations are accepted and recognized (France, 2015).
Analysis
In this way, there is a significant difference between a dynamic and non-moving theory. For instance, even though there are different contributors to the crisis theory, its primary postulates remain the same, but they are supplemented with dozens of new nuances. From this perspective, the desire to work on developing new details and making the traditional theory more complex, thus creating variances, makes the theory dynamic. More than that, the application of new nuances to the analysis of different situations and crises as well turns the theory into a dynamic one because it evolves with the world and common behavioral patterns. So, the creation of the new material on the theory is what makes it dynamic (James & Gilliland, 2016). On the other hand, in case of applying only traditional and basic postulates to estimating varying situations without making an effort to modernize a theory makes it static. It means that no new material is generated. So, the primary difference between non-moving and dynamic crisis theory is the relation of its postulates to the world – whether they evolve with the emergence of new crises or remain unchanged.
From the abovementioned perspective, it is complicated to perceive a static theory as an adaptive one. So, in case of the emergence of new crises, the development of a new theory or supplement to the existing theory is needed. However, to work on them, time and resources are critical, while people require instantaneous help in order to cope with the crisis. Think, for example, of September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This crisis resulted in a series of studies focusing on the effectiveness of different crisis theory postulates. Here, it is essential to mention that numerous details were added to the theory because of the novelty of the crisis that resulted in delays in treatment (Yeager & Roberts, 2015). On the other hand, recall other terrorist attacks that occurred after the 2001 crisis (for instance, 2013 bombings in Boston, Massachusetts). Even though the number of victims was significantly lower compared to the first example, this time, social workers had a well-developed approach to addressing the consequences of the crisis, including group treatment, interagency cooperation, and detailed guidelines and protocols for actions (Yeager & Roberts, 2015).
Conclusion
That said, it is paramount to work on developing the crisis theory in order to improve the ways of treating major crises and making them more progressive and effective. Of course, it is impossible to foresee some disasters. Nevertheless, preserving static postulates is connected to increased risks due to potentially critical delays in providing help to those in need.
References
France, K. (2015). Crisis intervention: A handbook of immediate person-to-person help. Springfield, MO: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
James, R., & Gilliland, B. (2016). Crisis intervention strategies. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Yeager, K. R., & Roberts, A. R. (2015). Crisis intervention handbook: Assessment, treatment, and research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.