marzo 17, 2023
Relational and Social Constructionist Consortium of Ecuador (IRYSE)
Diego Tapia Figueroa, Ph.D. y Maritza Crespo Balderrama, M.A.
We base ourselves for this series, on this thesis, from which we extract -adapting them- the proposals and invitations to a different relational position for the construction of the process of transformative therapeutic dialogue.
How are social constructionism and collaborative and dialogic practices useful for the relational co-construction of space for therapeutic training and supervision? Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Thesis (2018) for the Ph.D. with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the TAOS INSTITUTE of the United States.
“I have come to know, I have come to discover, and not just to dream on this soil of my fathers”.
Jorge Carrera Andrade (1989, p. 332)
Toolbox – Possible Worlds
“We can only contribute to helping if the conversation makes us curious. As in other matters of life, curiosity is the engine of evolution”.
Tom Andersen (1994, p. 60)
From this perspective, it is pointed out that the terms with which we understand the world are social artefacts, products of exchanges between people, historically situated. From the constructionist position, the process of understanding is not automatically driven by the forces of nature but is the result of an active and cooperative enterprise of people who are in relationship with each other:
The fundamental idea of social construction seems simple enough, but it is at the same time profound: everything we consider real has been socially constructed. Or more radically, nothing is real until people agree that it is. (Gergen and Gergen, 2011, p.13).
The fundamental of social constructionist thinking is the notion that personal constructions of understanding are limited by the social environment; that is, the context of shared language and the systems of meaning that develop, persist, and evolve over time.
We have a toolbox, not a “model”, not a recipe book; but instruments that we use according to moments, contexts, situations, and concrete and specific needs.
And, they are instruments and mobile tools. It is about mobilizing, and sliding (with a bio-psycho-socio-cultural-historical-political-complex perspective) in the production of meaning. Human transformation occurs, above all, more than by the techniques used, by the meaning that arises after its use in the therapeutic process. When we talk about a therapeutic model that guides work, rather than a school, we are looking for a model of resources, as opposed to a model of deficit. Even in the “toughest” people, there is something positive. If I only see what he does wrong, I don’t give him many opportunities for hope. The role of the therapist with families could be perceived as follows: someone who can be counted on, humanly and professionally.
One might take the risk of saying that almost all models of psychotherapy are a valid resource for the postmodern therapist, by conceiving them as a set of tentative metaphors and orientations, historically and culturally limited, and not as a finished science that imposes concepts and a single “correct” form of intervention. A postmodern perspective for the practice of therapy means a posture in which reality -in any of the complex senses given to it by human beings- is never out there in an immutable way, independent of our ways of knowing it.
We are made up of the stories we create, not only our own, but those of our parents, grandparents, peers, and our society. It is then a question of extending or modifying these stories to expand the possible worlds they can inhabit.
Constructivist psychotherapist Marcelo Pakman (1996, pp. 260-261) argues:
Such thoughtful dialogue has the potential to constitute a decolonizing practice, not only for them but also for ourselves. That and laughter. A colonized mind is one that respects the solidity of the world as postulated by the colonizer (including his values). And the colonizer is ourselves whenever we lose a reflective posture because we accept a social organization of interaction that restricts our possibilities to act and maintains the status quo. A decolonizing practice generates a spiritual dimension in which the solidity of the world is questioned and ‘dissolved into thin air’.
Therapy as a critical social practice of normality has a decolonizing role to play, both political and spiritual.
An organization of human subjects only maintains itself as such to the extent that it embodies a utopian project, not as a future goal, but as virtuality in the present; not as an ideal, but as the basic foundation of something worthy of being called human: the daily construction of a spiritual space.
In therapy, for example, it is about proposing the development of a different reflection on these significant questions:
SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS FOR SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST THERAPY
| How to know and meet a person the way I am a stranger in his life, and vice versa, and, together, you can temporarily create a way to transform together? | The need to have time to find our own words: the need to have time for others to find their own words. | Find a way to be with the other, which invites you to transform with the other. | The challenge is to listen to what others say, assess their perspectives, and ask questions that change the meaning. | How do you create genuine trust, not as a strategic objective, but as a condition of a relational bond? |
| Open yourself to the opportunity not to stay the same; take away the possibility of becoming someone different. | Reflexivity; is the creation of a dialogic space, where you can give and receive a NO, without fear of damaging the relationship, but, on the contrary, as what allows you to improve the relationship. | Prefer to stay with a broad vision, with an open conversation. | Be careful about what is being articulated as a theory, because you can think of the person from that place. | A set of resources, of voices, are convened and mobilized with their resources; Then comes uncertainty, and we don’t know where the necessary resource will come from. What is possible, to the extent, that we move. |
Each therapeutic encounter questions me in different ways. It is a conversation about what matters to the consultants, in which I try to be the person I like to be, and at the same time, be able to offer the conditions, to co-create the relational context, so that the consultants are who they would like to be. In a collaborative/generative dialogue that is not afraid to face the complex contradictions of the human condition, from a look and a listening that privileges responsibility, continuous and honest questioning about other senses and meanings, to contribute to new lifestyles.
In the ASIBA Pre-Congress Workshop, held in Buenos Aires, Tom Andersen, asked us this question: “What is it that humans in our lives, clients in therapy, people in their contexts, seek in all human interaction, what we need and value most, what we are grateful for? (Andersen, 2003) And, given the various answers he heard, he added the following (which I have shared permanently since then, in every class, seminar, or workshop I have been able to work on):
The fundamental thing, in every human relationship, is gentleness, which means: speaking gently; listening gently; asking gently; responding gently; treating gently. The most important thing in this process is to co-create a bond of trust and security between clients and therapist, this is what makes therapy a significant relational space, capable of generating new lifestyles. The truth of one’s relationship with another demands consistency that must be exercised.
The therapist’s task will be the unlimited creation of new meaning (of new stories) by keeping the conversation open. Understand that doing therapy is not knowing how to apply techniques, but building together with the consultants nurturing relationships; expand the possibilities, conversations, stories, and narratives. The idea is that therapy can allow the consultant to say (and think) what he has not yet said (or thought) about his personal history, and his relational contexts.
Mobilizing the resources of the consultants is also related to unknotting fears, guilt, and prejudices, and rediscovering, with those who come to the therapeutic consultation, who dare to face them, to free themselves from everything that is a denial of their being; And, at the same time, it is to deploy their capacities to move differently in the experiences, actions, and events in which they are involved, participate and care.
They are generative conversations that seek to produce new meanings and, therefore, new acts with different meanings. The specificity of this transformative dialogue, called therapy, is related to a collaborative/generative philosophical stance, committed to dialogue that builds those possible futures that courage and capacity, mobilized by consultants, can create.
If the constructionist proposal is a philosophy, it means that it is an orientation to reflect, with amazement, curiosity, sensitivity, and intelligence, on the complexity of the human condition, from a critical, questioning position, capable of questioning uncertainty, thanks to this collaborative/generative dialogue, with relational ethics converted into a significant question.
Dialogic conversation: the acceptance of the legitimacy of the other
The creativity of therapists is of enormous relevance to building processes that generate relational transformations, especially when faced with resource limitations and contexts (rigid institutions, and contexts of poverty, among others).
Therapy characterized as a conversational practice is not presented as trivial talk. To be therapeutic, new meanings must emerge, rewriting lived experience from new frameworks of meaning. In a conversation of a therapeutic nature, not only the stories are transformed, but the people who narrate them. For a conversation to produce that transformative effect, leading to a sense of personal authorship, the dissolution of problems, and another narrating self, it must be defined as a dialogic conversation. It is a shared research, a form of joint action between therapist and consultant.
Dialogue does not presuppose that participants agree. This is precisely one of its greatest riches: to be able to live with agreements and also with the diversity of ideas, opinions, and feelings, in an attitude of respect for otherness, and therefore, legitimizing. This is the fundamental aspect of a dialogic conversation: the acceptance of the legitimacy of the other.
All this happens in a context of genuine welcome and accompaniment, in which the voice of the consultant can be heard in the first person, expressing what it is, how it was built, and how it experiences its complex singular world.
The co-creation and co-construction of a space for mutual collaboration in which what is relevant is trust, security, understanding, validation, respect, legitimation, openness, flexibility, acceptance of the other as legitimate, good humor, meaningful and transformative dialogues, and new questions.
It is proposed that the therapeutic space should be the place of appreciative dialogues that, following what was exposed by Dora Fried Schnitman (2013) is the co-creative search for the potential, the best of the people, teams, organizations, and systems in which they find themselves.
In her texts developed in the Diploma that she directs on perspective and generative practice, the author -whom we reproduce in extenso with our systematization- argues that appreciative dialogue is based on focusing on the positive to make it grow.
This look at the positive potential establishes a difference that assertively disturbs a system oriented to the opposite; and in doing so with appreciative dialogue, it decisively mobilizes the field of what we can collaboratively generate, develop and grow intelligently.
What is appreciation? It is to value. It is the act of recognizing the best in people and the world around us; affirming present and past strengths, potentialities, and achievements; perceiving what gives life (health, vitality, excellence) to life systems. So what do we do with the negatives, difficulties, or obstacles that come along the way? It is not about denying them but about incorporating them with attention and concentration, realizing that they are there and formulating them in a learning key, facing them, and focusing on the positive as a driving force and driver of the future we want to create. In the position of appreciative dialogue and inquiry, people do not stagnate blaming themselves for the mistakes of the past, but seek to rescue the best of the past or even the present, the creative, the positive, the constructive, and the potential for enrichment is developed (“how could it have been…” if it is in the past tense or “how could it be…” if present) to contribute to making that potential a reality.
Appreciative inquiry, as explained by Fried Schnitman (2013), is a reflective conversation that narrates, through meaningful questions, the successful experiences of the past; the positive stories of the present are told; the possibilities that we want to build together for the future are told. And, how, in a creative and imaginative dialogue, we commit ourselves to expand freedom, dignity, and pleasure; so that relational ethics grow and be enhanced.
It calls for mobilizing the collective resources that create the possibilities: trust in the relationships with which one decides to interact; be active and alive; engage in a common desire to learn by recognizing the positive, unlocking knots, stagnation, and repetition; weaving with creativity and imagination, the “how it could be”.
Appreciative dialogue seeks creativity for innovation. The best conditions to create are those that make us enjoy, relax and feel safe. Therefore, focusing on the positive and the possibility is so powerful, since it generates an environment of comfort and security that allows us to open our minds and dare. It is about choosing between working from routine, fears, frustration, and complaints; or, from trust, and love. And, this joint work is lived, these processes of appreciative and collaborative dialogues as authentic experiences of joy, with vital spontaneity.
The process needs participation, democracy, good humor, flexibility, giving space to everyone’s dreams, valuing what does work, and imagining what could be. Collaborative and dialogic and generative practices open new conversations, which mean new relational possibilities, and new worlds.
SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen, T. (1994). The reflective team: Dialogues and dialogues about the dialogues. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Gedisa.
Andersen, T. 2003. ASIBA Pre-Congress Workshop, held in Buenos Aires, Field Diary of Diego Tapia Figueroa.
Anderson, H. (1999). Conversation, language and possibilities. A postmodern approach to therapy. Buenos Aires, Argentina Editorial Amorrortu.
Carrera, J. (2000). Poetic work. Quito, Ecuador: Editorial Acuario.
Fried Schnitman, D. (2013). Generative process and dialogic practices. Networks: Journal of Relational Psychotherapy and Social Interventions No. 28, (pp. 67-98). RELATES, Spain, Barcelona.
Gergen, K (2016). The Relational Self. Beyond the Self and the Community. Bilbao, Spain: Editorial Desclée de Brouwer, S.A.
Gergen, J. (2011). Build reality. The future of psychotherapy. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Paidós.
Pakman, M., Comp. (1996), Construcciones de la experiencia humana, Volumen II, Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Gedisa.
Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Thesis (2018) for the Ph.D. with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the TAOS INSTITUTE of the USA.
English translation of Bruno Tapia Naranjo.
Descubre más desde Consorcio Relacional y Socioconstruccionista del Ecuador
Suscríbete y recibe las últimas entradas en tu correo electrónico.
