FAQ (En Español) scroll down
Each issue of the Journal will pose a Frequently Asked Question for discussion. The emphasis on discussion is based on the notion that questions are posed as starting points for dialogue and not for answers. In the spirit of the Journal as a format for interchange, there will be multiple conversation-initiators to each question. Reflections-discussions are first presented in English, followed by the Spanish translation. Readers are invited to post their responses to the question as well as their engagement with the initiating responses. Readers are also invited to pose questions for the FAQ section of future issues of the Journal. (To post, please scroll to the end of the page to the Comment box.)
Question: “What is the risk of postmodern-social construction informed collaborative practice becoming a truth and how can this be prevented if the practice is to remain coherent with the underlying assumptions?”
Conversation Initiators: Malena Braun, Sheila McNamee
Malena Braun
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Sheila McNamee
Durham, New Hampshire
Malena:
Dear Sheila:
As I told you, I went to the meeting without knowing much about collaborative practices (and I still live with my ignorance).
I met Harlene in China in 2014. I was performing qualitative research on former clients, and she thought it would be interesting for me to share my work at the International Congress on Collaborative Practices. That´s all I knew when I arrived to Tucuman.
I hope my questions are understood, taking into account that I am “an ignorant outsider.” And, as an outsider, one of the things that struck me most, was how unified and convergent the points of view of the participants of the meeting in Tucuman were. This happens at every meeting, it is nothing to be surprised about, but in this one, the importance given to the multiplicity of voices somehow collided with the homogeneity of the voices. And there came my first question: How to spread this approach without shutting out the disagreeing voices?
Sheila:
You raise an excellent point. A central feature of dialogue and collaborative practices is the notion of multivocality. There are two ways to understand this concept. First, we can say that each person is multivocal. We have many voices available to us: the voice of appreciation, the voice of critique, the professional voice, the family voice, the list is endless. Also, we can understand the notion of multivocality as emphasizing that there are multiple truths/social orders in the world. That is to say that one community’s beliefs and values are quite likely not the same as another community’s. The notion, therefore, of one Truth is replaced with the idea of local truths. The challenge for collaborative practitioners is to coordinate this multiplicity (in both senses). So, you can see that the view of multiple voices actually embraces and, in certain respects, celebrates “disagreeing voices.” We recognize that we can never create the conditions for “one Truth” and thus we must work to create the conditions where different voices, different truths, different value systems can somehow be in conversation. It is, after all, in conversation that meaning and new forms of understanding can be constructed. In collaborative and dialogic practice, we do not seek to find agreement but to create new forms of understanding.
Malena:
Would it be good and something to strive for, to spread this postmodern view of the world until everybody is inside?
Sheila:
There is an important distinction to be made here. In a modernist worldview, theories compete for “truth status.” If one accepts a particular way of looking at the world (e.g., a cognitive orientation), that becomes the lens through which the world is understood. And debates ensue among competing theories of the social world. However, in a postmodern worldview, since there is no universal or ultimate Truth, all theories (perspectives) are seen as ways of talking and positioning ourselves in the world – neither true nor false. The modernist criterion of veracity is replaced with the postmodern criterion of utility. When, in other words, is it useful to speak the language of cognitive psychology and when is it useful to use the language of psychoanalysis, for example? The point is that there is no claim to the Truth from a postmodern perspective. There are simply multiple truths and thus the attempt to appreciate and recognize this multiplicity becomes the hallmark of postmodern practice. In a somewhat paradoxical manner, a postmodern orientation to the world does not require everyone to adopt postmodernism as Truth. To step into this framework allows us to use any theory, model, or method that enhances our ability to collaborative and be in dialogue with the other. For example, in the therapy session, if the client’s comments suggest that s/he privileges cognitive/behaviors understandings of the social world, to the extent that the practitioners speaks the language of cognitive/behavior theory illustrates the practitioner’s collaborative stance (as opposed to his/her stance of certainty).
Malena:
How to avoid dominant voices taking over, and imposing a unique way of looking at the world?
Sheila:
This is always a challenge and, given our focus on multiplicity, we should never desire silencing any voices – even dominant ones. Rather, it might be useful to think about “softening” dominant voices and opening space for alternative (unheard or previously silenced) voices.
Malena:
When Gergen in the video was “sad” (or disappointed) by the brilliant student developing a scale for depression, and in the talk we had with the small group after the video, I listened to an unified agreement that scales are bad because they objectify something as subjective as mental illness. Personally, I don´t think depression scales are good or bad per se, but somehow I felt that in that context one had to agree they were undesirable and wrong. And there another question comes to my mind: what is proscribed, and why, in collaborative practices?
Sheila:
I agree with you that scales and measurement, in and of themselves, are neither good nor bad, right nor wrong. Historically, there has been backlash against measurement simply because it is a hallmark of modernist science. Yet, as we move to a more enhanced understanding of postmodern ideas, we can see that once a postmodern stance is adopted, we move away from either/or issues. This includes issues of measurement (and also of using theories that have emerged within a modernist philosophical stance as discussed above). Measurement is another language game. The discussion should not be directed to whether or not measurement is good or bad but to how we make use of measurement. Do we treat it as Truth (which I suppose would constitute a proscribed practice for postmodern practitioners)? Or, do we see it as one among many ways to give meaning to particular phenomena (a prescribed practice for postmodern practitioners)? In the case of Gergen’s student, I would ask: What assumptions did the student make in designing the depression scale and to what use did s/he put the “results?” If designed and used to “prove” and document the existence of depression (a proscribed practice), that would be a shame because it would silence any other voice/understanding of what might be happening in a person’s life (another proscribed practice). If, on the other hand, the designing and use of the scale were oriented toward examining how clients navigate dominant cultural discourses about depression and their own broader relational networks, that would be very interesting and potentially open new avenues for exploration.
It does seem that identifying practices that are proscribed by a postmodern stance places us right back into the modernist discourse of right/wrong, true/false. So, let me say it this way: There are certain forms of action that the postmodern practitioner is probably less likely to use (e.g., diagnosing based on de-contextualized “symptoms” or acting with certainty concerning one’s own view of the client’s situation). However, no form of action is uniformly prohibited. All action takes place in context and in relation to the client. To that end, if a client is asking for the voice of certainty from the practitioner, it might be useful to employ that voice (but that doesn’t mean that the practitioner understands his/her “certainty” as right or true).
Malena:
What are the things other therapists do but a collaborative therapist shouldn’t do?
Sheila:
Act with certainty, imposing one’s own truth on the client. However, having said that, we must still realize that there are times when the broader social/cultural context requires us to act with certainty (e.g., in cases of violence). In such cases, the postmodern stance of uncertainty/curiosity allows the practitioner to explain the social/cultural expectations and simultaneously open a space for co-reflection on the specific, situated aspects of the client’s case for purposes of coordinating these diverse worldviews.
Malena:
I was also wondering, that this view of the client knowing and the therapist being there to listen to the client´s desire and to generate new meanings through language, with no recipes of what to do, is what many schools of psychotherapy say that they do. But, at the same time they discredit all other forms of therapy and have generated a rigid practice, with many rules. It has become sort of a religion, where the followers are stricter than the masters, and I thought about the risk of that in post modern therapies. Which do you think are the ways of preventing this from happening?
Sheila:
I agree with you. The so-called “masters” are open to many different ways of being and yet, once we begin to write about a particular form of practice or a model and integrate it into training new practitioners, it becomes the Truth. This is why it is important to start with a firm grounding in what it means to step into a postmodern philosophical stance. As I said earlier, postmodernism is not about Truth, it is about acknowledging, respecting, a appreciating the many different ways of talking about and acting in the world. All theories become possible resources for use. If the “followers” were first introduced to these ideas, they would see the flexibility in moving in and out of various discourses.
Malena:
I really liked in your talk what you said about research .
What types of research do you think are most appropriate to research post modern therapies?
Sheila:
It depends on who is participating in the research, what the focus is, where the research is taking place. A generative move in research is to include those who are the focus of your research in the planning and development of the project. In that way, the research does not become too “foreign” and disengaged from the participants and the context. If interviews seem appropriate, then that could be the way to go. If questionnaires are more in line with what participants would expect and find useful, there is no reason not to use them. Research, like all other conversations, is an unfolding activity.
Malena:
I would like to go back to China, with a conversation I had with a participant where she told me how, in their culture, when they went to see a doctor, or a psychotherapist, they were expecting for the authority to tell them what to do and how to do it. And that many times, when the therapists didn´t give them precise answers and directions the patient left disappointed, and sometimes never returned. In order not to disappoint me, what suggestions or directions would you give postmodern therapists working with clients with that type cultural background?
Sheila:
Another excellent and important point. If a practitioner always avoids offering advice or answers, then s/he has turned postmodern, collaborative practices into a technique. On the other hand, if the practitioner is responsive to the client, s/he can offer advice, suggestions, even directives while still maintaining a “not knowing” stance in terms of believing that his/her advice, suggestions, and directives are correct. The point is not to assume as practitioners we “know nothing” but to assume that we “know differently.”
Malena:
Another thought that struck me, it has nothing to do with our topic, but maybe yes, was that in the taxi, when you talked about “Big” (character from the TV series, Sex in the City) I knew who he was, I also know Walter White from Breaking Bad and have seen every chapter of How I Met Your Mother. US television series are very popular in Buenos Aires. It is very unlikely that you know who Floricienta is, and that made me think of how dominant cultures, or knowledge generally flows in one direction, shutting out weaker voices. For what I know the idea of collaborative practices is to rescue all voices, independently of power, but can it ever be achieved?
Sheila:
Who knows if all voices will ever (or can ever) be rescued; but it is worth a try!
Author Note:
Malena Braun
Universidad de Belgrano
Buenos Aires, Arengtina
malenabraun@gmail.com
Sheila McNamee
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hamphire
smcnamee@cisunix.unh.edu
This page has the following sub pages.
International Journal of Collaborative-Dialogic Practices 