April14, 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.
“… since the ethical act -responsible- is effectively carried out in the being-with”.
Mikhail Bakhtin (1997, p. 20)
“… A resource is used as an invitation to create possibilities to ‘continue together’, so our attempts are relationship-oriented.”
Sheila McNamee (2016) Taos Institute
Pragmatic sense and challenges in relational research, therapy, and clinical supervision
In these co-research processes, we work to arouse curiosity about the new contents that are proposed and designed with a pragmatic criterion (that is useful for their respective social and professional practices; that respond to the specific needs of each local context).
We seek -with the co-investigators- that the dialogue we undertake is situationally motivated, responding to the context of each meeting, rather than to methodological reasons and fixed contents.
As a point of reference, we follow a broad guide and from it, we incorporate the needs and expressions of the interrelationships of the participants. From this position of accompaniment, we seek to validate the joint effort of the participants in this work, recognizing their achievements and manifesting them publicly; what they do well, and their past and current successes; rather than stagnating in the deficit, the “error”, the “but”, and the abundant forms of human and professional disqualification that usually occur.
To speak of one’s own “style” is not to refer to something standardized, fixed, immutable, or to any essence or form that repeats itself; it is more a form of relationship, based on respect for the other and a genuine human curiosity that is manifested, through reflective questions that motivate reflective criticism, in the use of humor and irony; in a critical passion, whenever ethical and political issues are dealt with, and, particularly, in a political ethic to live, work, interweave and interrelate socially, aimed at generating processes of cultural transformation.
Doing so, from a position in the words of Jan DeFehr (2009, p. 9): “Instead of passively exploring what something is, or what it means, collaborative dialogic inquiry seeks desirable possibilities, new forms of action that matter and make a direct difference for people and communities”.
Thus, we experience the sensation of acting -also with words- because words are acts, which generate relational possibilities, capable of producing conscious and responsible contexts in the creation of new relational ethics. Forms of strong action by the interrelations of practical understanding of what people do so that future alternatives are generative and transformative.
Jan DeFehr (2009, p. 9), quotes Kenneth Gergen (n.d.), who “instigates social science research to move beyond the problematic convention of ‘mirroring’ our rapidly changing world, toward a formative, imaginative, and proactive inquiry that is explicitly ‘liberatory, practice-producing, and action-centered.’
Meaningful questions open up relationships and generate the possibility of relational transformations, in a local context, which will discover that dialogue and conversation can not only transform the other but also transform us, little by little, everyone. It has to do with choosing to learn to listen differently, to listen deeply, and to respond.
We convene to find the words, within each other and with the others, and to say them simply. With the confidence that social/relational constructionism and collaborative and dialogic and generative practices interrogate our life and our experience.
Marilene Grandesso (2006), in the Congress on Community Therapy held in Sao Paulo in 2006 affirmed that violence is everything and any act and word perpetrated against someone who denies his autonomy, his legitimacy as a human being; any abuse of power; any action, omission, and discourse that denies the person to exercise his or her right and legitimacy; actions and their consequences that prevent living with a minimum of dignity. Any exchange in which one member places the other in an unwanted position or place and that can be verbal and/or physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. -Taken from my field diary (2006)-
This reflection is related to the political-human need to sustain a position of reflexive criticism, social rebellion, permanent irreverence, and a consistent anti-conformism, not naïve at all. Kenneth Gergen answered a question at the meeting of the Relational Research Network of the Taos Institute in March 2016 about conducting research as a social action.
Pragmatic sense and challenges in relational research, therapy, and clinical supervision
In these co-research processes, we work to arouse curiosity about the new contents that are proposed and designed with a pragmatic criterion (that is useful for their respective social and professional practices; that respond to the specific needs of each local context).
We seek -with the co-investigators- that the dialogue we undertake is situationally motivated, responding to the context of each meeting, rather than to methodological reasons and fixed contents.
As a point of reference, we follow a broad guide and from it, we incorporate the needs and expressions of the interrelationships of the participants. From this position of accompaniment, we seek to validate the joint effort of the participants in this work, recognizing their achievements and manifesting them publicly; what they do well, and their past and current successes; rather than stagnating in the deficit, the “error”, the “but”, and the abundant forms of human and professional disqualification that usually occur.
To speak of one’s own “style” is not to refer to something standardized, fixed, immutable, or to any essence or form that repeats itself; it is more a form of relationship, based on respect for the other and a genuine human curiosity that is manifested, through reflective questions that motivate reflective criticism, in the use of humor and irony; in a critical passion, whenever ethical and political issues are dealt with, and, particularly, in a political ethic to live, work, interweave and interrelate socially, aimed at generating processes of cultural transformation.
Doing so, from a position in the words of Jan DeFehr (2009, p. 9): “Instead of passively exploring what something is, or what it means, collaborative dialogic inquiry seeks desirable possibilities, new forms of action that matter and make a direct difference for people and communities”.
Thus, we experience the sensation of acting -also with words- because words are acts, which generate relational possibilities, capable of producing conscious and responsible contexts in the creation of new relational ethics. Forms of strong action by the interrelations of practical understanding of what people do so that future alternatives are generative and transformative.
Jan DeFehr (2009, p. 9), quotes Kenneth Gergen (n.d.), who “instigates social science research to move beyond the problematic convention of ‘mirroring’ our rapidly changing world, toward a formative, imaginative, and proactive inquiry that is explicitly ‘liberatory, practice-producing, and action-centered.’
Meaningful questions open up relationships and generate the possibility of relational transformations, in a local context, which will discover that dialogue and conversation can not only transform the other but also transform us, little by little, everyone. It has to do with choosing to learn to listen differently, to listen deeply, and to respond.
We convene to find the words, within each other and with the others, and to say them simply. With the confidence that social/relational constructionism and collaborative and dialogic and generative practices interrogate our life and our experience.
Marilene Grandesso (2006), in the Congress on Community Therapy held in Sao Paulo in 2006 affirmed that violence is everything and any act and word perpetrated against someone who denies his autonomy, his legitimacy as a human being; any abuse of power; any action, omission, and discourse that denies the person to exercise his or her right and legitimacy; actions and their consequences that prevent living with a minimum of dignity. Any exchange in which one member places the other in an unwanted position or place and that can be verbal and/or physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. -Taken from my field diary (2006)-
This reflection is related to the political-human need to sustain a position of reflexive criticism, social rebellion, permanent irreverence, and a consistent anti-conformism, not naïve at all. Kenneth Gergen answered a question at the meeting of the Relational Research Network of the Taos Institute in March 2016 about conducting research as a social action.
DTF: Will it be necessary to build together with the participants/interlocutors a critical political stance, which generates possible futures of transformation and rebellion?
I much prefer research that emphasizes collaborative participation, and as I wrote in a previous response, I greatly value perfecting critical deliberation. However, having spent a few years in somewhat rebellious activities, I can now see its limits. In particular, there is a tendency to construct the “evil Other.” Now, I look for ways that those whom we rebel against can collaborate with us. (Kenneth Gergen, virtual communication, March 2016).
If it is put into perspective, it is understood, that Gergen proposes not to “get hooked” in rebellions that put the responsibility on the one who is demonized and we comfortably install as the “evil Other”. This appreciation of the constant need for deliberation, conversation, and critical reflection is only possible if we rebel, in constructive ways, against all forms of human exploitation and oppression.
Deciding to leave a “child rebellion” to one that means a commitment to collective care, is a decision that implies leaving blindness and choosing to see; not to cover up or be complicit in any form of mistreatment (especially of children) and, therefore, to recognize that the limits of rebellion have to do with not producing transformations. In other words, only permanent rebellion (with the capacity to discern, with criteria) is a possibility of freedom, consistently sustaining the dignity of relationships.
Each time you have to ask yourself, in each meeting:
• Who says what, who does what, and with what, in what situation, and with what status?
• How to position yourself in the complexity involved in understanding the subjectivity produced in each space of joint dialogue?
• Look for the right words and open the possibility of a sufficiently rich narrative: neither destroying, nor debasing, nor idealizing, nor lying, nor “saying everything”.
• You have to find a balance and the way is to give it a narrative status; let those present tell -with their own voice- the story and the multiple stories that could be, from that conversation.
We have an example of this in the richness of literature: polysemic textuality, subject to a multiplicity of possible interpretations, meanings, and readings.
What we agree together, as legitimate, from our local culture will have the relativity that times and shared spaces grant to human experiences, the same applies to the research work carried out with the participants. And, like any construction, from the social-constructionist orientation, it will be validated for its social utility.
Something that has emerged throughout the dialogues with the co-researchers held for this work, is that a different position is needed to learn: not only the desire to learn, the passion to learn, and the pleasure of learning, but also the humility to learn. Humility, as a human and intellectual attitude. A conceptual humility, which recognizes and accepts not only one’s own “not knowing” -the profound ignorance that accompanies us- but includes the validation and positive assessment of the questions of others, their doubts, and their alternatives.
In other words: humility to be open to understanding how to learn from the experiences, resources, knowledge, and strengths of others; going through the comfortable convictions that an expert facilitator would teach them as alternatives and possibilities. It has to do with accepting that the community with which we work and learn together, creates with sensitivity, skills, intelligence, and creativity the generative alternatives, those that the needs of their relational and social contexts ask, invite, demand even, or propose them, as possible horizons for the future. This means a process of theoretical and practical humility to accompany these dialogues about one’s resources (and humility is nourished by genuine curiosity).
Far from the knowledge achieved and consolidated -in the past- these open dialogues to understand differences want -with others- to discover and create, the positive valuation and joy of difference.
Asking means learning to open ourselves to listening to what is important.
So… what is important for a person? Freedom in relationships, in conversations. To build each other as legitimate interlocutors, who value and recognize each other in our diversity. Above all: responsibility towards the other, mutual respect, and the legitimation of the other as an authentic other. The permanent construction of dignity in the relationship and with the relationship.
An incessant question, which is nourished by criticism and self-criticism, as a reflection to positively nurture the relationship.
With the question, the person commits and takes responsibility for the relationship, and in the interrelation; it is committed to each human being, their history, and their circumstances; that is what generates transformation.
These dialogues and these conversational discoveries are made possible from an honest curiosity, which honors relationships. There is a genuine desire to know and understand the other.
Postmodern thought advances toward knowledge as a discursive practice; towards a plurality of more local, contextual, and fluid narratives; towards a multiplicity of approaches to the analysis of issues such as knowledge, truth, language, history, the person, and power. It emphasizes the relational nature of knowledge and the generative nature of language. (Anderson, 1999, p. 71).
It is a language that is seen as a social practice interested in all the participating voices telling their stories and that these are understood as legitimate and respected in the context of their local culture; at the same time, there is an openness marked by having multiple perspectives to know, understand, interpret and describe the social worlds created by those who -from this coordinating language- build those worlds and highlights the functioning of all the “social artifacts” built in a given culture and historical epoch, from an openly relational position and with a generative and potentially transformative perspective.
We do so from a position linked to the words of Jan DeFehr (2009, pp. 5 and 9):
Collaborative dialogic inquiry as a method of inquiry is inherently transformative and generative, just as it is in everyday life (…) Instead of passively exploring what something is, or what it means, collaborative dialogic inquiry seeks desirable possibilities and new forms of action that matter and make a direct difference to individuals and communities.
Thus, we experience the sensation of acting, also with words, because words are acts that generate relational possibilities, capable of producing conscious and responsible contexts in the creation of new relational ethics; they are forms of strong action for the interrelationships of practical understanding that meant to create new ways of communicating and conversing with families and colleagues.
In the words of Marcelo Pakman:
(…) To be an affirmation of that unique condition, of psychotherapy as the generation of a space where that possibility can be pronounced and begin to be inhabited, and of the justice of exercising that minimum emancipatory promise that nests in the human as a political, ethical, and aesthetic heart. (2011, p. 16).
Therapy is posed, then, as a space open to social, cultural, political, ethical, and aesthetic life; a space for reflection capable of releasing resources that emancipate and therefore generate responsibilities for the creation of the contexts of social justice. It is deciding that therapy serves to be in the world from an affirmative position, not conformist or uncritical, but rather, positively committed to those who create the possibilities of a socially new life.
Co-construction of reflective space for the team of participants
“Communities regulate formulations (language) of stories (meanings) of differentiations (what one hears and sees) of the event (of the episode, of the moment, of the problem, etc.)”.
Tom Andersen (2000, p. 81)
Following John Shotter (2015), our research begins as journeys begin: with the intention of making a path and reaching a certain destination; however, the process of co-investigation modifies intentions, courses change, and gives way to creative and transformational moments.
| GENERAL OBJECTIVE | CONTENTS |
| Provide participants with an intensive supervised clinical experience of working with individuals, couples, and families, from the perspective of social/relational constructionism, collaborative and dialogic practices, and the generative model. It will be possible to provide participants with basic theoretical-practical-experiential experiences for their development and growth as psychologists, operators, and social workers. Clinical training and supervision are designed to integrate theory with practice in reflective, critical, and creative ways. | History, systemic, and Social/Relational Constructionist worldview. General bases of Systemic Therapeutic Models: Structural (Minuchin); Strategic (Haley- Milan Model); Intergenerational (Bowen) (Framo); Contextual (Nagy); Experiential (Whitaker); Communication (Satir); Solution-focused brief therapy (from Shazer); Narrative (White); Constructivism; Social/Relational Constructionism and Collaborative and Dialogic Practices, Generative Model. Professional and relational ethics Relational processes (the Ecuadorian family and its dilemmas) Relational connection and reflective pragmatics Handling the first interview Resilience and Crisis Intervention Social Constructionism and Therapeutic Clinic Construction of the therapeutic process, and the relationship Therapeutic questions Reflective teamwork Therapeutic processes and support networks Examples of clinical processes with the most common problems in the Ecuadorian context Conflict management and mediation processes How does the caregiver need to take care of themselves? Integration of BEING-KNOW-HOW Generative dialogues (teams that build and expand possibilities) Unresolved problems of therapists and/or advisors-operators, and the Team Reflective team Support networks Relational and communication skills, to stimulate the creative, reflective, critical, proactive, and purposeful spirit of the team Clinical supervision |
| SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE | |
| Generate understanding of the integral well-being of individuals and families, through the interactions between those who participate. It is about promoting relational and communicational processes that increase well-being in their different collaborative contexts. |
It also proposes a process of deepening, through continuous clinical supervision, inter-vision, and co-vision at three levels:
1. Theory, study, and joint reflection based on proposed texts;
2. Therapeutic processes; dialogue on the how, and what of each story and creative alternatives for the construction of the possible futures;
3. The therapist’s being: what is going on with the advisor, facilitator, operator, therapist, and team in each process and story? Caring for the Caregiver Processes.
The methodology we propose is:
Finally, the exit profile of the participants and team members of the participants is proposed in the three aspects (being, knowing, doing):
| EXIT PROFILE OF THE PARTICIPANTS | ||
| BE Attitudes –Values– Relational ethical lifestyle – Emotional intelligence | KNOW Knowledge | DO Professional practices, resource management, skills, methodologies |
| Free from prejudices and stereotypes | Learn about conceptual orientations | Create authentic connection links |
| It integrates in a coherent way the three areas: being-know-how | Reflexively questions prejudices and stereotypes | Manages care criteria for individuals and families |
| Has ethics (confidentiality) | Has a solid foundation in social-constructionist/relational epistemology | Manages resources to serve communities |
| Is curious and flexible | Differentiates models and schools of respectful attention to families | Articulates and guides families in state care routes |
| Is respectful | Identifies the needs of every person in their social interrelation | Promotes the culture of good treatment |
| Maintains assertive relationships | The culture of abuse differentiates violence as an educational method from the culture of good treatment | Facilitates workshops on the prevention of sexual violence against children and adolescents |
| Does not judge or criticize or give advice | Know the fundamentals of the laws related to the exercise of rights | Intervention in emotional crisis |
| Promotes – in a coherent way – gender equity | Applies a human rights, gender, and generational approach | Handles the first interviews properly |
| Sustains the dignity of relationships | Identify the integrality of sexuality | Manages mediation and conflict resolution strategies |
| Learn to dialogue through questions | Has local resources for care and support for individuals and families | Handles methodologies for sex education |
| Puts the focus on the positive and makes it grow | It distinguishes and questions, in everyday life, inequities and inequalities based on gender. | Handles relational communication bases |
| Embodies the consistency of difference | Work from reflective pragmatics | Promotes local support networks |
| Invites -by practicing- to be responsible with the other | Invites co-creation and promotes meaningful dialogues | Promotes the elevation of people’s resilience levels |
| It is related to mutual respect | It is nourished by local knowledge, knowledge, experiences | Facilitates processes of women’s empowerment and construction of new masculinities |
| It contributes to the permanent construction of dignity in the relationship and with the relationship | Understand and enhance the sense of Caregiver Care | Create bonds of commitment and authentic relational ethics |
It is proposed to move from the traditional (the common) to group meetings and invite each participant to be proactive, to reflect on existing resources, whether their own or present in the same dialogic space, that can be contributed in the context of these relationships. We do so, above all, with questions about the future, which invite us to imagine the possible different actions that would lead us to these necessary transformations.
This proposal however is based on the evidence that in transformative dialogue, what matters is what emerges from the interlocutors. How can we tell about a dialogue that is no longer the same, that is different each time, and that we do not know how it will continue, where it will find us tomorrow, and what questions will challenge us? What new conversations will we be able to generate, with imagination and creativity?
In the supervision, inter-vision, and co-vision, we think of our contributions as the possibility of introducing ourselves in continuous becoming and of the co-construction of new practices with the participants that generate significant social-relational transformations.
SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen, T. (2013). A sentence in five lines. On the production of meanings from the perspective of relationship, prejudice and bewitchment. In Deissler, K. & McNamee, S. (Ed) Filo and Sofia in dialogue. (pp. 76-83) Ohio, USA: Ed. Taos Institute Publication.
Anderson, H. (1999). Conversation, language and possibilities. A postmodern approach to therapy. Buenos Aires, Argentina, Editorial Amorrortu.
Bakhtin, M. (1997) Towards a philosophy of the ethical act. From drafts and other writings. Barcelona, Spain: Editorial Anthropos.
Bertrando, P. and Toffanetti, D. (2004) History of Family Therapy: Characters and Ideas. Barcelona, Spain. Publisher: Paidós.
DeFehr, J. (2009). Dialogic Action Research: The Phenomenon of Democratic and Transformative Agency of Responsiveness (Unpublished article). University of Winnipeg, USA.
Fried Schnitman, D. (Mi Diario -DTF- de campo-2017) Dentro del Diplomado en Perspectiva y Práctica Profesional Generativa- Fundación INTERFAS.
Gergen, K (2016). The Relational Being. Beyond the Self and the Community. Bilbao, Spain: Editorial Desclée de Brouwer, S.A.
Gergen, K. Virtual communication, March 2016.
McNamee, S. (2016) Virtual meeting of the TAOS Network of relational research.
Mc Namee, S (2016). Resources for Facilitating Differing Worldviews, Taos Institute December 2016. Recuperado de: http://www.taosinstitute.net/Websites/taos/files/Content/5868649/Resources_for_Facilitating_Multiple_Worldviews_(McNamee).pdf
Packman, M. (2011). Words that remain, words to come. Micropolitics and poetics in psychotherapy. Barcelona, Spain, Editorial Gedisa.
Shotter, J. (2013). Wittgenstein and the roots of social poetry in spontaneous bodily reactions: the field. In Deissler, K. & McNamee, S. (Ed) Filo and Sofia in dialogue: the social poetry of therapeutic conversation. (pp. 84-90) Ohio, USA: Ed. A Taos Institute Publication.
Taos Online Seminar. (2017). Social Construction: Premises and Promises. Recuperado de http://taoslearning.ning.com/groups2/taos-online-workshop-Spring-2017
Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Thesis (2018) for the Ph.D. with the Free University of Brussels (VUB) and the TAOS INSTITUTE of the USA.
Tapia Figueroa, Diego (2007). Postmodern psychotherapies in the systemic field. Theoretical, practical and clinical materials from social constructionism. Quito, Ecuador: Editorial. Cif.
English translation of Bruno Tapia Naranjo.
