June10, 2023
Relational and Social Constructionist Consortium of Ecuador (IRYSE)
Diego Tapia Figueroa, Ph.D. y Maritza Crespo Balderrama, M.A.
“Language is reality… Facts happen, but the meanings we attribute to them are built in language.”
Harlene Anderson, 1999. p. 269
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.
Contributions of social constructionism and collaborative, dialogic, and generative practices for research
When choosing the path of relational research, we face different challenges than those faced by other types of research. For example, the need to understand it as a producer of transformations in the relational contexts that participate in the process. From the beginning, we are clear that it is a process that never ends, a process of infinite dialogue, in which the important thing is the decision and learning to be with the other; that is why we talk about co-investigators, because those who are leading the investigation make their voices heard throughout this journey, recounting their expectations and achievements, their discoveries and hopes.
The invitation to open dialogue results in the weaving of a multiplicity of connections which widens the relational network and offers new meanings (constructed from the exchange of experiences, words, and feelings) to the realities that are lived in daily life. Each one is different with each relationship that generates hope.
Committing to the productive generation of connections with the participants also opens the possibilities of transforming with the relational process that the space for collaborative training and clinical supervision, inter-vision, and co-vision is offering us.
The relational connection is probably one of the most fruitful contributions and achievements of this conversational space created with the team of co-investigators. It is achieved by integrating relational responsibility into their lifestyle, opening up new possibilities that allow them to facilitate the coordination of actions and the development of a different sensitivity in the processes of relating to others and working democratically with teams and families; by seeking co-responsibility and generating new ways to interrelate in those contexts.
In the dialogue, the interest resides in the formation of fruitful forms of connection between the participants, a journey in which they share their local knowledge, the value of their own culture, and the reflections that give meaning to conversations that create constructive differences.
We are strengthening ourselves with an attitude of responsiveness -which means being attentive to the process of relating to others- of conversing by listening to respond, of building with the questions-answers that accompany the interlocutor, and taking care of the relationship. It is a question not only of responding, but of contributing with the answer, even though the contribution is not -properly speaking- an articulated response, but mere listening from curiosity to understand and thus connect with the other.
Being responsive, therefore, means understanding dialogically and assuming the type of relationship and conversation that I want to have with the other.
“A common mantra expressed by many constructionists is: ‘There is no such thing as a constructionist method, per se.’ All methods, all theories, all models, and techniques are available resources for social interaction. What makes the use of particular resources consistent with the relational approach to social construction is how any resource is used. Once a method, technique, model, or theory is used because it is the right one, we abandon our constructionist sensibilities. If, on the other hand, a resource is used as an invitation to create possibilities to “get on together,” then our attempts are relationship oriented“.
(McNamee, 2016, p. 1).
The social constructionist perspective is directed to the recognition of relational resources, of the strengths and abilities that are generated in social interactions; inviting to build a criterion (with intelligence and relational ethics) to use these possible resources; overcoming modernist perspectives, the rigid and oppressive obligations of certainties, crossing the reductionist narrowness of general and unique truths with a sensitivity characterized by openness, curiosity, creativity, imagination. A permanent responsible commitment so that the resources generate possibilities of joint transformation, in which the sense of the context that is innovated has to do with choosing to talk, dialogue, connect with the other, walk together, and be with others in differentiated ways by legitimizing difference and accepting diversity. Choosing, finally, the relationships that build common social futures.
For social constructionism, the most important function of language is the construction of contextualized human worlds, with a discourse that recognizes, values, and legitimizes otherness and the presence of multiple voices; and puts the relational processes as the significant part of its reflections, of the construction of meanings and of the actions that need to be developed. That is why the social-relational world communicates to us, it speaks to us when we question it when we ask ourselves new questions about it.
We seek, following the proposals of John Shotter (2015), new ways of being with ourselves and with others, new, genuine, and authentic ways of being in relationships with others. We seek the creation of dialogues committed to the joint construction of other possibilities of social relations.
Social constructionism helps us to be interested in knowing and understanding how we live in a network of relationships with others, with their diversities, and cultural and contextual specificities, in a process of being with the other in continuous metamorphosis.
Contributions to the Ecuadorian Context
“Creative action means not only choosing but participating in the creation and expansion of possible choices.”
Harlene Anderson (1999. p. 300)
Opening spaces for training, collaborative/generative learning, shared clinical supervision, inter-vision, and co-vision is necessary, not only for the professionalization of the teams of public and private institutions and organizations that work on family, childhood, and adolescent issues; but also to think differently about relational processes, cultural contexts, the present and the future of this society; how we can and want to jointly take responsibility in the construction of alternatives and solutions for the great dilemmas of Ecuadorian society.
From the beginning of the process, it can be frequently noticed by working with different types of institutions, that it is essential if you want to create a space for training, supervision, inter-vision, co-vision, and teamwork, to seriously take into account (respect) their word and needs; in addition to being contextualized actions that are maintained in the relational practice in their work with families.
How we work the research proposes a series of contributions to the Ecuadorian context related to making visible -in practice with a specific team of professionals- this social constructionist perspective and the orientations of collaborative, dialogical, and generative practices; by working on them as a consistent response with the needs of these teams and networks, and in tune with the rights of the families with which these psychologists, therapists, social workers, lawyers, social and community operators are related; and, the different public and private institutions with which we are in relation throughout these years.
We are introducing a postmodern language, (collaborative learning practices) disseminating generative perspectives, sharing local knowledge, giving value, recognition, and legitimacy to the multiple voices participating in these processes and contexts with a relational position; weaving connections, looking for alternatives, in thoughtful conversations, jointly producing new meanings, expanding possibilities, looking to the future.
Decide to accompany through dialogues in which our questions contribute to creating a context of curiosity, critical reflection, and positive self-reflection. Because relational questions connect with the world of what is important to the culture of the families with whom we work, and thus the expansion of relational possibilities in those cultural contexts is achieved.
It is a recursive position because there has been a back-and-forth between what one produces (team and Network; families) and what the other produces (facilitator; team and Network).
The therapy processes, working with a diversity of people, from this social-constructionist perspective, are an invitation to shared freedom, in which the “truth” dissolves, and what is important is the different dialogue about what we can build together; with curiosity and respect. And, the generative is in the collaborative co-construction (in dialogue) of solutions.
Because language produces new actions, relationships, and possibilities (it invites other relationships) and makes us be in every conversation with others. For this reason, the focus is on the relational consequences, maintaining a complex vision, which opens a new space for the multiple voices present. And this is done through dialogue -which is a collaborative way of building meaning- and thus a research process is carried out that is both relationally ethical and politically transformative.
It is in relating to ourselves, through language, in conversing with the other, in conversing with otherness that we connect; and by weaving those worlds of language we recognize the differences, and we can understand and accept them. And, it is in the conversational encounter with otherness that those words of the other transform us. We transform relationally, and conversationally, and we build new meanings.
Words are acts that transform us in relation to the other; and, their doing tells us who we are, how we are, and what we can build differently, the possible futures that we can generate together. That is how conversations expand the possibilities of relational contexts.
By conversing and connecting we discover together what these conversations mean, what they build, the possibilities that they open up that are unprecedented, that they generate, contribute, and enhance: that the joint construction of meanings is a collaborative relational process. It is in the conversational space that we can begin to explore what is not said, to be able (with curiosity and respect) to see what is important and to contribute to creating a context and a bond of security and trust.
Contributions to the work of technical teams
“The purpose of therapy is to help people tell their narratives in first person so that they can transform their identities into others that allow them to understand their lives and their events, that open up many possible ways of being and acting in the world at any time and in any circumstance, and that help them achieve and express or execute their creativity or their sense of autonomy”.
Harlene Anderson (1999. p. 305)
The team of technicians and the Network of participants -who participate in these relational investigations- can interrelate to talk each time about the differences between having families as interlocutors for a form of investigative relationship -that generates alternatives- with the committed participation of families and professionals; and, the welfare gaze, so typical and loaded with ideological justifications, with supposedly scientific pseudo-theories, with stereotyped methods and from the positions of experts who own oppressive and colonizing truths.
Furthermore, taking into account that all the NGOs and public institutions that participate in these processes respond to positivist and modernist worldviews, traditional, paternalistic, and moralistic forms (they are nourished by the dominant culture and ideology), in their practices and beliefs about working with families and children in conditions of social vulnerability.
They tend to be interested in the techniques, methods, and tools to make “functional” families; in complying with previously standardized protocols; in filling bureaucratic reports with unilateral interpretations, loaded with prejudices and commonplaces; in pretending that families and professionals adapt and enter the general categories of what social work and psychotherapy are supposed to be.
In the beginning, there is usually little relational interest, respectful human connection, a lot of superficial content, and no commitment to the generation of alternatives, mobilizing resources and strengths of families and the teams of their foundations and institutions.
Step by step, and as a result of a responsible commitment manifested in the continuity and consistency of the training and supervision, inter-vision, co-vision process -of the collaborative learning that we are sharing and building- the participation and conformation of the team of technicians and the network is created.
A process open to the artistic, to listen (for example) to the poets and their words:
GRAIN OF CORN every morning in the rooster's crop turns every grain of corn a corncob of songs. Jorge Carrera Andrade (2000, p. 112)
As we can see:
Collaboration is built on possibilities, creativity, and innovation, the result of conversations and relationships. Through collaboration, new ideas and patterns can emerge, especially as multiple points of view are compared, measured, and mixed. (London, St. George & Wulff, 2017, p.1).
Reflecting on relational ethics has been a constant throughout these years; understanding what it means, in a simple, clear, and direct way: one is when he acts; you are what you do. And we do it with questions, how can choosing to come together make a difference? How can I help give this person all the respect and dignity they deserve, understanding the context? The question is: How to put the being of the facilitator at the service of the human process and joint learning with the participants in these meetings?
Ethics is alien to any type of authoritarian imposition. What we “ought” is, fundamentally, what we love, desire, and want to achieve; they are the values that contribute to our personal and community fulfillment. Doing good is living authentically as a human being, in connection with others.
The formation and continuity of these collaborative/generative learning processes contribute positively to the construction of the well-being of communities and their cultures, of families and the professionals that interact with them, promoting a generative dialogue and transformative processes, from a new perspective (social construction, collaborative and dialogical and generative practices), which sees this meeting as a creative, positive, assertive, and proactive appropriation of everything that happens to us in life: connections, relationships, and significant encounters. To see that these are permanent learning processes, which need spaces for reflection, and accompaniment.
These dialogues are permanent, they continue, they are infinite, and the conversations are open. Our reflections, doubts, questions, and questionings continue to enrich us relationally.
Suggested Bibliography
Anderson, H. (1999). Conversación, lenguaje y posibilidades. Un enfoque posmoderno de la terapia. Buenos Aires, Argentina, Editorial Amorrortu.
Carrera, J. (2000). Obra poética. Quito, Ecuador: Editorial Acuario.
Fried Schnitman, D. (Ed.) (2017), Diálogos para la transformación: desarrollo de proyectos e investigación generativa orientados a la construcción de futuros en Iberoamérica – Volumen 3. Ohio, USA: Ed. A Taos Institute Publication. WorlShare Books.
Gergen, K (2016). El Ser relacional. Más allá del Yo y la Comunidad. Bilbao, España: Editorial Desclée de Brouwer, S.A.
Gergen, K (2014). From Mirroring to World-Making: Research as Future Forming, Recuperado de: https://taoslearning.ning.com/groups2/global-relational-research-network/virtual-symposium-2018
IRYSE (2018) Blog del Instituto Relacional y Socioconstruccionista del Ecuador (IRYSE): https://iryse.org/
London, S., St. George, S. y Wulff, D. (2017). ISI readings/lecturas para el ISI 2017-Guía para la Colaboración- Recuperado de 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). La poesía social de la investigación comprometida con la relación. La investigación como conversación. En Deissler, K. & McNamee, S. (Ed) Filo y Sofía en diálogo: la poesía social de la conversación terapéutica (pp. 102-109). Ohio, USA: Ed. Taos Institute Publication.
Shotter, J. (2001). Realidades conversacionales: la construcción de la vida a través del lenguaje. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Editorial Amorrortu.
Tapia Figueroa, Diego, Tesis (2018) para el Ph.D. con la Universidad Libre de Bruselas (VUB) y el TAOS INSTITUTE de EEUU.
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.
