International Journal of Collaborative-Dialogic Practices

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 ethics from a social construction and postmodern perspective and what are the implications for practice?”
Conversation Initiator: Kenneth J. Gergen

Kenneth J. Gergen
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, United States

Kenneth:

Constructionists are frequently accused of being ethical relativists, as if it doesn’t matter to them what ethical position one holds, or even if they have ethics at all. I don’t know anyone who has such a view. However, constructionists do recognize that there are multiple ethical traditions, and there is no means of ruling among them outside of yet another tradition. With this being said, constructionists draw from many different ethical traditions in their lives, but with a keen recognition of the multiple values circulating in the world around them. In my own work (Gergen, 2009) I have been especially engaged in trying to develop an ethical view that honors the relational process from which ethics emerge – ethics of any kind. Ethical value is placed not on any particular tradition, but in the face of value conflicts, on finding means of restoring relationships among otherwise antagonistic parties.

The broad implications of a relational ethic for human societies are substantial. In this short space I will simply sketch out some of the implications for practitioners in fields of therapy, counseling, and social work. Usually people working in these fields share an underlying and often formalized ethical posture that places a value on the well-being of “those who are served.” Yet, in spite of its surface plausibility, serious questions remain, prominent among them, “in whose terms is ‘well-being’ defined?” It is one thing for the therapist to listen and embrace the needs of the client, but what of the values that the therapist brings to the relationship? As care-givers we often confront those whose forms of life are not congenial with the values we ourselves bring to the relationship. What if the values and life patterns of the client are distasteful, unethical or even evil in our eyes? Should one bend an empathic ear, for example, to a tyrannical and abusive father, a sexist employer, a pedophile, a racist, or a bully – even when the client finds such actions perfectly acceptable and fulfilling? If the relationship is truly a dialogue, then why should the care-giver re-main silent on such matters?

There is more: The relationship between care-giver and client can be crucial to the client’s ultimate well-being. However, this is a highly circumscribed goal. Depending on this relationship many others may be affected – for good or ill. Will the client’s gain necessarily be a gain for others; could it be detrimental? “Effective therapy” might well foster self-interest, withdrawal from relationships, and decision making unaffected by others’ views. These could be losses for family members, friends, colleagues, and so on. And where should we draw the line in terms of ethical reverberations? In transforming relationships we are transforming cultures, and in turn, their relation-ship to other cultures.

Given an ethical commitment to the well-being of relational process, how do we address these problems of plural and conflicting values?i My own approach is to recognize and encourage practices of relating with clients that may enable mutual recognition of differences, understanding, and possible transformation. I am drawn here to Richard Rorty’s (1999) view that, “Moral development in the individual, and moral progress in the human species as a whole, is a matter of re-making human selves so as to enlarge the variety of the relationships which constitute those selves”. The following illustrate the kinds of practices in which I find promise:

• Opening the vocabulary of selves: As I have elsewhere proposed (Gergen, 2009), we are multi-beings. We not only harbor multiple personalities, but carry with us a multitude of conflicting values. For every value we may espouse, we also carry counter values. Exploring these often suppressed values with clients can be an effective way of crossing boundaries of difference, and bringing into attention the many traditions of which one is part. If a client is an irresponsible drinker or gambler, for example, he or she also harbors many reasons for not being so. Bringing the traditions represented by these values into salience may bring the client into a more promising relationship with others.
• Fantasy Exchange: Face-to-face communication may not always be optimal for crossing boundaries of meaning. Here I am drawn to the ways Peggy Penn (2009) made use of letter writing as a means of re-establishing clients’ relationships with those from whom they were alienated. For example, a daughter who has cut herself away from an abusive father may be encouraged to write to him, and explain her feelings. She would engage in the writing not necessarily with the intent of sending the letter. Rather, she would, in fantasy, experience the act of direct expression, and its impact on the father. Later, the daughter might be asked to take the father’s part in answering such a letter. By role-playing both parts, a significant thawing in relationships is invited.
• Establishing the presence of others: Can the voices of others, who carry different values, be brought into the room? I think here especially of the work of therapist Karl Tomm (1998) and his practices of exploring the internalized others which clients bring with them to therapy. Tomm asks clients to explore the feelings or views of those who are not present. For example, if a client is highly critical of a spouse, an employer, or neighbor, the therapist may ask the client to take the part of the devalued other. What would he or she say, what story would he or she tell?

I was once a personal recipient of Tomm’s wise form of intervention, when he helped to restore civility in a conference gone mad with fierce, oppositional viewpoints. He quieted the tumult by interviewing me and my adversarial partner, Ernst Von Glazersfeld, as the other. As I roll-played Ernst, and he played the part of me, we all discovered many points of harmony and agreement that had been cast aside in the rush to argument. To be sure, differences continued to be expressed by participants, but with mutual respect and even appreciation.

• Appreciative questioning: People are often sealed off from exploring alternatives to preferred ways of life, for fear of having to admit weaknesses, vulnerabilities, or inconsistencies. Particularly in family situations, however, some therapists make use of appreciative questioning to invite responses that may foster mutual under-standing and build relationships. Participants may be asked, for example, to comment on positive attributes or actions of each other. With the building of mutual regard, the demand for having one’s own way is reduced; one can more easily admit shortcomings or ambivalences, as well as see new possibilities. Participants are able to listen more sympathetically with each other.

These are only a few practices that may bring forward multiple and conflicting values otherwise obscured, softening the boundaries among them, and opening a space for rapprochement. In the end, it is the well-being of the relational process that is at stake.

References:

• Gergen, K.J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gergen, K.J. (2015). Relational ethics in therapeutic practice. Australian and New Zealand Jour-nal of Family Therapy. 36: 409-418.
• Penn, P. (2009). Joined Imaginations. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Publications.
• Rorty, R. ( 1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. New York: Penguin.
• Tomm, K. (1998) Honoring our Internalized Others and the Ethics of Caring: A conversation with Karl Tomm. In M. HOYT (Ed.), The Handbook of Constructive Therapies San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (pp. 198-218).

Author Note:

Kenneth J. Gergen, Ph.D.
President, Taos Institute, USA
Professor, Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania, USA
kgergen1@swarthmore.edu

Sue Levin, Ph.D.
Houston, Texas, United States

Ken’s very poignant discussion about ethics and conflicting values has a critical place in the evolution of dialogical and collaborative relationships in psychotherapy. I am very excited to be included in this publication to reflect on his essay. And, speaking of reflections, that is what came to mind for me, as I read his suggestions for how to deal with ethical and value-driven differences when working with clients from a relational perspective. Before I get to talking about reflecting processes, however, I would also like to acknowledge a major concern for therapists that was not raised in Ken’s piece. That is the legal and licensing requirements that govern the practice of therapy in many countries, of which I am most familiar with that in the United States.

These laws, rules and ethical codes specify some very clear and rigid actions that therapists must take in reporting abuse and neglect situations, and harm to self and others. They can impact therapeutic relationships, even when they are handled with utmost care and concern. The legal and licensing requirements often end up being thought of as ethical principles (and may even be taught that way in ethics seminars and workshop). I will move from this issue, though it could be the basis of an entire paper on balancing micro-level relational ethics with macro-level social constructs that are in place in law and community. And how as I embrace the multiple roles and selves that I inhabit as a citizen, a licensed clinician, a supervisor, a caring clinician, I am responsible to many different entities.

So, how do we as clinicians, who recognize we do have our own values and beliefs that we may share in some contexts and not others, decide when and how to do so in therapy? In a chapter about working with couples (Levin & Carleton, 2015), Diana Carleton and I discuss a couples’ therapy which challenged many personally-held values that we both shared. And, I have worked for years with people who were involved with the children’s protection system after being accused of physical, sexual abuse and neglect, and with partners who were involved with domestic violence. I have had many conversations that include ethical issues like these.

The reflecting process (Andersen, 1991, 1992) is one thing that I can add to the great examples of specific therapeutic activities that Ken cited. A reflecting process is a way to bring multiple ideas into a conversation in therapy, and can be done with a reflecting team, or by a solo practitioner. This process was first developed by Tom Andersen and his colleagues in Northern Norway, as a way to diffuse the power of the therapist by having multiple therapists who would bring different ideas and solutions into the therapy room. See multiple writings about this process.

At HGI, we have the luxury of sharing space and time with many different therapist-colleagues, and that allows us to have reflecting teams regularly. Reflecting teams may challenge clients in ways that a therapist may not. The therapist is then able to stay away from taking value-positions but use comments from the team to discuss the client’s thoughts about them.

When we do not have the option of using a team, for various reasons, we might reflect ideas by talking about something we read or heard, or been taught in school, such as “there are a lot of people in our society, right now, who believe that we should raise our sons and daughters as equals, how is it that you ended up thinking the way you do?” In cases that involve legal issues, a therapist might reflect, “my understanding of the law is that harming a child when using physical discipline is not okay, did you know that?” The therapist is offering their understanding and ideas about these community concerns without having to take a personal stance about it.

Occasionally a client may ask me what I think about certain laws or social norms, and in those cases, being public with my own values and beliefs is usually my preferred response. I underscore that though these are my beliefs, I do not hold them for my clients, society makes the rules, laws, etc., that may affect the client, not me, individually.

These are some of my ways of working with the dilemmas that were raised by Ken’s essay. I hope that they are helpful, and I look forward to continuing the conversation.

References:

• Andersen, T. (1992). Relationship, language and pre- understanding in the reflecting processes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 13(2), 87–91.
• Levin, S. & Carleton, D. (2011). Collaborative Therapy with Couples. In Carson, D. & Casado-Kehoe, M. (eds). Case studies in Couples Therapy: Theory-Based Approaches. New York: Routledge.
• Andersen, T. (1991). The reflecting team: Dialogues and dialogues about the dialogues. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
• Biever. J. L. & Gardner, G. T. (1995). The Use of Reflecting Teams in Social Constructionist Training. Journal of Systemic Therapies: Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 47-56.
• Friedman, S. (Ed.). (1995). Guilford family therapy series. The reflecting team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
• Fine, M. (2003), Reflections on the Interface of Power and Competition in Reflecting Teams in Academic Settings. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29: 339-351. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2003.tb01211.x

i For a more extensive account of these issues, see Gergen (2015).

Authors Note:

Sue Levin, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Houston Galveston Institute
sue@talkhgi.com