April 28, 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.
“… The discourse on the social poetry of research is concerned with the idea and practice of engagement with relationships.”
(Sheila McNamee, 2013, p. 102)
What we are with others will allow us to be aware and responsible for what we bring and propose in each dialogue.
Sheila McNamee (from my field diary, 2016) argues: “Can we open a space to talk about our differences without trying to persuade or demonstrate that one position is superior to another? Our focus should not be on agreement but on forms of understanding“.
When dialogue is transformed into reflection, an invitation is made to place oneself in the present and actively participate in each encounter with the curiosity to discover together what is significant at this moment and how to respond and act.
As a result of this joint journey (which is all co-investigation) other nuances and meanings were built, consolidated, and acquired. Kenneth Gergen in a conference given in Chile said: “Let’s see then the possibilities that we bring to this dialogue (…) Each brings with it a world of possibilities (…)” (Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, 2009).
The observation of who we are with others will allow us to be aware and responsible for what we bring and propose in each dialogue; of the world that accompanies us (and that speaks to us internally) to converse with the other worlds to which we open ourselves. Bringing new possibilities allows the encounters not to be tiring, repetitive, or “more of the same”.
One of the interests in this type of research is to understand how -from creative and dialogic processes generated by curiosity and passion for learning- becomes possible to create the conditions for a movement that means the recovery, valuation, recognition, and legitimation of critical and reflective conversational spaces. Encounters with people are capable of opening new questions, from rebellion against social injustices; the questions that enhance the ability to doubt and interrogate.
Questions that allow the unfolding of the creative, the unprecedented, what could be. Recognize co-researchers as historical subjects, in diverse contexts, with different human, cultural, political, ethical, and aesthetic experiences, and at the same time, interested in jointly building -collaboratively- possibilities of transformation in their lifestyles. Growth with the other is guided by respect, acceptance, and recognition of the own resources of each interlocutor.
Creation is the invention of new dialogic possibilities guided by positive experiences that we continue to coordinate with others, questioning the knowledge established about ourselves, others, and the world; and sustained by relations of domination. We overcome the limitation of the individual perspective and embrace the movement of the relational which allows us to be amazed and marveled (the genesis of the creative act) with each new conversation, by abandoning certainties and asking ourselves about what is useful –what can serve– giving meaning and new meanings to the local culture itself.
The sequence of the days of these collaborative/generative meetings, although flexible and open, can have these characteristics (the process and its reflective and generative questions are extensively nourished by the learnings already commented, both in the ISI Seminars, coordinated by Harlene Anderson and Sylvia London; and in those developed by Dora Fried Schnitman, in your Generative Diploma):
1. Welcome, in which a dynamic of dialogue is proposed: For 2 minutes (alternating, 1 minute for each of the 2 people in dialogue) with each person, all participants talk standing, face to face with 3 different people from the group. On each occasion, first one and then the other say these phrases: “Welcome: how good to see you” and “How good that you are here”. Then they talk, during that minute, about any topic they would like to share and narrate. The other just listens, without interrupting. After the minute, the roles are exchanged. Then you change partners. After the rounds, a reflection on the sensations experienced in this brief welcome is opened. Those who wish to do so comment. We reiterate this activity on every occasion because new people always arrive from other foundations, organizations, and institutions for whom this may be their first meeting in this space.
2. We propose and generate questions to begin relationships and conversations, such as: what would you like to talk about today? What would you like to tell us about your experience in these fifteen days? What questions have arisen from the readings and conversations you have had; that they would need to happen today to take something useful that serves them? What do you hope to achieve at the end of this process, after having participated? What would have to happen so that when this is over, you feel satisfied? How can you contribute, in a meaningful way, so that what happens here, is what you expect and what you would like?
The invitation is for all those present to give personal answers, mobilizing the expression of all participating voices. One by one they found out what they felt and thought or needed or wanted.
3. Group dialogues in which those present alternate with different people (participate in several groups per day), dialoguing reflectively about other questions, for example: could you tell the other members of your group, what kind of person you are, how you are, what is the most important thing you think others should know about you, to understand the qualities you have? After sharing these stories and reflections, they were asked that already in the conversation with all those present, those who wished to do so could comment and reflect on what they appreciated, valued, and learned; both from what they could tell about themselves and from what they heard others narrate.
4. Group reflections and presentations on the readings proposed before each meeting (articles, essays, excerpts from books related to social/relational constructionism and collaborative, dialogic, and generative practices, chosen according to the needs and themes that arise in each meeting) and to keep a reflective field diary about this collaborative generative learning experience in which they record the most significant of their experience, as a way of making their process visible; and those who would like to share some aspect of the record are invited to do so with the participants of each meeting.
5. Plenary conversations and reflective dialogues about what each participant would like to ask about the most relevant of the readings carried out and, above all, connections between the theoretical proposals and their usefulness for the practical use of the different teams involved.
6. There are variations in these reflective conversations, with the study groups that are formed, which choose one of the proposed texts, work before each fortnightly meeting, exchange their perspectives and points of view, and, already in the meeting, explain to all those present the most relevant concepts of their reading, as well as their own interpretations, meanings, and usefulness for their practice.
7. Participants propose to the facilitator a topic, concept, or epistemological curiosity in which they are interested so that it can be broadened and deepened.
8. The facilitator makes a theoretical reflection from the social constructionist/relational orientation on these concerns, contextualizing them relationally, permanently trying to establish connections and meaningful conceptual relationships oriented to practice.
9. A dialogue is opened in plenary, on what was presented by the facilitator seeking feedback from all those present.
10. There are problems that the different participating teams experience in the work contexts of their respective institutions and foundations and together they seek to contribute with alternatives to these relational knots.
11. In small groups they talk about the family stories, with which they are working, which generate questions, doubts, and concerns; and that due to their complexity, they wanted to be treated in this space.
12. Of the stories raised -in summary- the participants choose two which are worked consecutively in dynamics of role play in which, in turns, assume different family roles and alternate in these 4 roles: a) therapist, b) social worker, c) interdisciplinary team, d) reflective team. Every participant experiences all the roles. Propose to reflect on unsaid issues that concern the members of the team and the role of the families with whom the team is working.
13. After each role-play, a collective reflection is opened, privileging the gaze on the skills, resources, and strengths of each member of the family, of those who assumed the role of therapist, social worker, and those who were part of the reflective team; amplifying the relational resources of the multiple voices present.
The questions invite us to think about the meaning of what was happening with the family, in their relationships; what led each member of the team to identify with the theme or with any of the characters represented; in what “touched” them of that relational context, in the actions, communications, and responses of that family, or that therapist or social worker; in the human and professional learning that these reflective dialogues were leaving them. What is generated, what is built as learning, is the shared responsibility of team members and the facilitator.
14. The different teams also share their knowledge and successful experiences working with similar stories and the alternatives that they consider to be useful in these new relational contexts.
15. It also discusses those aspects of the story that worked collectively that touched and connected with the different participants, their families, or their work.
16. It happens sometimes that some participant in these meetings wants to share with all those present some personal, family, or work issue that generates suffering or a feeling of blockage, anxiety, fear, or guilt. The facilitator reiterates the commitment to confidentiality, while making explicit, to whoever wishes to tell his story, to talk about what he feels comfortable with, not to expose himself unnecessarily, s that he or she is not obliged to tell more than what considers relevant in this context, nor to answer any questions that may be asked; additionally, after they concluded, they wondered what they needed from us, what they would like to hear, what they expected when telling their story; how would they like it to be answered, what would serve them; and, in addition, if you wanted any of those present, in particular, they could give you feedback, or contribute with some perspective, point of view or opinion. As a facilitator, it is convenient to remind people who are going to give their perceptions to do so from a position of resources and strengths, without looking for the deficit, without judging or criticizing, without moral advice; but with relational sensitivity and respect, with an intelligent sense of collaborating in the construction of alternatives and possibilities for those who generously wanted to narrate something intimate.
17. When these processes of “group or community therapy” often occur we experienced them as an excellent opportunity to create -with respect and affection- the community that welcomes this complexity, mobilizing the existing resources in the collective, generating a sense of belonging, trust, worth; we built collaborative communities that contributed significantly to the concrete well-being of the participants. The result is always hopeful and leaves an experience of optimism.
18. The facilitator invites all those present to write down (in their respective notebooks) the lessons learned from this working day. Then, they are asked to share them with the whole group; it also opens the possibility that, if any of the members of the teams wish to comment assertively on any of the reflections of others, they are welcome; or if they wish to ask a direct question about what they´ve heard.
19. All participants express, either with a word or a critical reflection, what they take away from this day of work. We usually record on flipcharts, on loose sheets, or on the blackboard, the main reflections that have been shared, or that participants wanted to write directly.
20. Often (at least once every two months) at the beginning of the day we see some valuable film -one of the best in the history of world cinema- and we also send some significant poems, as well as texts of the perspectives and social-constructionist authors, etc. And, of course, after watching the film, we open a conversation in which each participant expresses their thoughts and feelings about the story, the protagonists, and the language of the film. Likewise, we do about the poems and proposals of philosophers and social-constructionist authors.
Co-construction of reflective space for the team of participants
We get used to talking, little by little, with questions; to asking ourselves with curiosity and respect; to listening differently, in this process of collaborative/generative learning. In the words of Harlene Anderson (1999, p. 337): “Questions are a way to invite other voices and other sources of experience, to continue to set a collaborative tone, and to begin to create intersecting dialogues.” It is a joint collaboration between therapist and consultants, to discern with criteria, the multiple hows, which allows crossing the present dilemmas; and, building, as authors of their history, a new relational life, based on mutual respect. The complexity of the human condition, and the uncertainty of living, teach us that, in the field of mental health, the more voices, and the more multiplicity of consistent voices: the better.
Harlene Anderson (1999, p. 22) continues:
The conversation –in therapy, in teaching, in a business consultation– seeks to help people have the courage and ability to “move between things and events in the world”, to “have a clear perspective”, and to produce. It is allowed by a special kind of conversation –a dialogue– and the therapist’s ability to create a dialogic space; and therapy is a language system and a linguistic event that brings people together in a collaborative relationship and conversation, a joint search for possibilities; it is about facilitating a dialogic process, a philosophical stance.
There is a co-responsibility so that this therapeutic and different dialogue effectively mobilizes these spaces making them special for both consultants and therapists because there is an appreciative connection, a mutual valuation, as well as trust, recognition, and legitimation of the participating voices in these special contexts.
The accompaniment carried out during the co-investigation is not exempt from personal and professional crises. As Jan DeFehr (2009, p. 21) says, we also proposed this research as: “… A multi-vocal and collective act of solidarity that contributes directly to the betterment of a community… “.
In the meetings with psychologists, operators, and social workers, who participate in the spaces of supervision, inter-vision, and co-vision, that we direct, we reflect on the characterization that Harlene Anderson (1999, p. 167), makes about therapy: “A process of forming, saying and expanding what is not said and what needs to be said -an unfolding through dialogue, of new meanings, themes, narratives, and stories- through which new self-descriptions can emerge. “
They are processes in which different words and languages are articulated in a relational context in which dialogue has a transformative character because it is liberating of being; a being who finds the conditions to say what otherwise tyrannized his existence: the unsaid. In this exchange of senses, new meanings are generated that have consequences in the construction of a new style of being oneself and in new relational styles.
Throughout the process, we will discover that developing stories produce new futures; in the meetings, we have to see that, to achieve these diverse possibilities, therapeutic spaces with children and their families must invite the formulation of questions born of a real curiosity about what is “not known” about what has just been said. With the co-researchers, we defined therapy as a complex and subtle exchange of interpersonal meanings, as the space to join the consultants in the construction of a complete and deep map fed by the stories, often confusing, in which they are emotionally involved, and act.
Movements, voices that inhabit us
When we open a space for the expression of multiple voices, the important thing is to understand how this diversity is expressed, not only to know and respect it but to transform ourselves, while those voices, when expressing themselves and generating practical actions, are legitimized because they affect their contexts and decide their futures. This description allows us to perceive a transformation of language, new relational words begin to be used (“and discover that it was a joint process”).
By experiencing the freedom of a space of acceptance, a responsible commitment to oneself and others is generated (“Now my voice will be heard”). It is the acceptance and legitimation not only of the diversity of others but of one’s own; a joint growth that is done only in the dialogue that transforms the meanings and therefore the relational contexts and the futures with which they commit to build.
Knowing that the question constitutes the basis of the dialogue implies that the role of the psychotherapist, who works from this different position, is to establish a conversation to make knowledge and skills visible so that people become familiar with their qualities, which are in their life history. Questions that signify mobilizing possibilities of hope.
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 circumstance, and that is what generates transformation. These dialogues, this conversational discovery is made possible from an honest curiosity, which honors relationships. There is a genuine desire to know and understand the other.
As the process progresses, different questions are proposed, born of the dialogue of the participants who meet, and who challenge each other to find their resources. This dialogue, between equals, is capable of effectively proposing, as we have already said, the following issues: We need to build a different relational ethic; a deep intimacy, which means opening ourselves, in a transforming dialogue, to the possibility that the “truth” of the other changes us.
Generate those poetic encounter moments in which dialogues that transform us are created, with relational acts committed to the construction of new ways of being in the world.
SUGGESTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, H. (2013). Collaborative Language Systems and Collaborative Relationships: A Postmodern Approach to Therapy and Consultation. In Deissler, K. & McNamee, S. (Ed) Filo and Sofia in dialogue: the social poetry of therapeutic conversation. (pp. 58-67) Ohio, USA: Ed. A Taos Institute Publication.
Anderson, H. (1999). Conversation, language, and possibilities. A postmodern approach to therapy. Buenos Aires, Argentina, Editorial Amorrortu.
DeFehr, J. (2009). Dialogic Action Research: The Phenomenon of Democratic and Transformative Agency of Responsiveness (Unpublished article). University of Winnipeg, USA.
Fried Schnitman, D. (Ed.) (2017), Dialogues for transformation: project development and generative research oriented to the construction of futures in Ibero-America – Volume 3. Ohio, USA: Ed. A Taos Institute Publication. WorlShare Books.
Fried Schnitman, D. (My Diary -DTF- field-2017) Within the Diploma in Perspective and Generative Professional Practice- INTERFAS Foundation.
Gergen, K (2016). The Relational Being. Beyond the Self and the Community. Bilbao, Spain: Editorial Desclée de Brouwer, S.A.
Gergen, K. (26 March 2009). Interview at the School of Psychology of the Adolfo Ibáñez University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUirLCs9LIw
Grandesso, M. (2000). On the Reconstruction of Meaning: An Epistemological and Hermeneutic Analysis of Clinical Practice. Sao Paolo, Brazil: House of the Psychologist.
IRYSE (2018) Blog of the Relational and Socioconstructionist Institute of Ecuador (IRYSE): https://iryse.org/
London, S., St. George, S. y Wulff, D. (2017). FILL readings/readings for ISI 2017-Guide to Collaboration- Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Casa/Downloads/Guia%20para%20la%20Colaboracion%20%20espan%CC%83ol.pdf)
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
McNamee, S. (2013). The social poetry of research committed to the relationship. Research as a conversation. In Deissler, K. & McNamee, S. (Ed) Filo and Sofia in dialogue: the social poetry of therapeutic conversation (pp. 102-109). Ohio, USA: Ed. Taos Institute Publication.
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.
