my family do things could come to my house and feel they have to completely change what they are doing to fi t what might be the expectation, which is much less likely to happen if that person thinks that their way of doing things should be privileged. T e idea of professional identity also fi ts in with the dominant imperialist ideas of class and achievement, which portrays its own values (Said, 1978) and can portray a patronising at itude to other ways of being, something Said referred to as “Orientalism” (Nasseri, 2019). T e process of taking on this diff erent


identity also has parallels to having to renounce some elements of self to be able to fi t or take on the identity that is privileged (Fanon, 1963). Despite feeling like a ‘professional’ when looking in the mirror, we can still see something or someone diff erent to what the ideas are about what or who a professional is and what this means (Nasseri, 2019). Facing up to reality can be a very alienating process that can contribute to a loss of identity (Fanon, 1963), something that we were keen not to ascribe to. T erapy for us is therefore very much about the coming together of people whilst privileging diff erent ways of “developing knowledge rich in local relevance and fl uidity” (Shot er, 2010, p. i). A word of caution then – our at empts at being professional in this coming together “might not only alienate ourselves f om each other but f om our clients as well” (McNamee, 2004; p. 14). T rough considering ourselves, our


families and cultures, once we became supervisors we were then also hugely infl uenced by the experiences of the clinicians we supervised, where they would comment on the challenges to engage particular marginalised/cultural groups. T is brought us back to our earlier ideas of how do we join with diff erent families and their process of change. Our own knowledge, values and beliefs heavily infl uenced what we would do in therapy, which we thought would be helpful to examine using Burnham’s (1992) approach, method and technique framework. We both feel that refl ecting “in action” and refl ecting “on action” (Schon, 1983) about this framework allows us to consider our position on ‘engagement’ and ‘process of change’. In order to use these ideas with bet er ‘intentionality’, that allows families and


20


young people to feel heard, understood and connected. T rough doing this for ourselves, and supporting our supervisees to consider their own framework, we saw a real benefi t to extending these ideas through running a workshop. Late last year (Nov 2019) we ran a


workshop for the Institute of Family T erapy on ‘Developing Sensitive Practice in Adolescent Culture in Urban Environments: From “Hard to Engage” to Connected’. T e purpose of the workshop was to share our framework and also support practitioners to refl ect on their own framework, notably their practice concerning the work they were doing with families and young people who were typically termed ‘hard to engage’. Considering our ideas that there needs to be a coming together of cultural practices to open up possibilities between people, we believe the only way we can do this is by being creative and staying close to our experiences.


Approach We are both from marginalised


communities, and as such understand the political and social contexts that we are working within, some of which have already been highlighted. Additionally, for instance, for me (Hendrix) being a black male, I would oſt en think about the dominant narratives that would be used to describe ‘black men’ and ‘black boys’ that oſt en made me feel uneasy, as it did not represent all their experiences or even mine. What I usually didn’t hear was the ‘thin narratives’, about black men and boys; or even the ideas that we can be very diverse based on culture, status, class and religious practices. I was aware that becoming a psychotherapist aff orded me special status and power, which did not exist in the same way before my qualifying. I’m only able to share my ideas in this article due to the status provided by training as a therapist. I have come to realise that the profession allowed me to occupy a new identity that enabled people to see my multiple identities. I (Derek) see the idea of identity,


including professional identity, as something that is not fi xed or fi nite but is instead fl uid, being continually socially constructed within each encounter we have. It is essential then that we can hold a critical gaze (hooks, 2003) on these multiple identities. By portraying ourselves in the way that we want, rather than only the ways that we are described, can open up


possibilities, and it’s the same for the people we work with. For these reasons, we both wanted to hold onto approaches that allowed us to see and engage with the multiple identities our clients occupy. We privileged an ethical stance that honoured the clients’ experiences and their hopes, and valued the idea that they are doing the best they can in the situation they are in. For instance, being curious with clients about oppressive practices allows us to not just hear their experiences, but to understand how we avoid replicating these oppressive practices. Also, it will enable the clients to tell us what works for them, as they are the experts on their own lives. To help us in this area, we draw on ‘social constructionist’ ideas (Freedman & Combs, 1996), ‘critical theory’ (White, 2014), liberation psychology (Afuape, 2011) and intersectionality theory (Wat -Jones, 2011). When we ran the workshop, these were the key themes that practitioners wanted to engage in throughout the day. T is demonstrated to us that there is a need to understand bet er where clients are coming from and a desire to work in anti- oppressive ways. For this article, we wanted to focus on


how we have utilised ‘liberation psychology’ ideas as we feel, as systemic practitioners, we need to draw on these ideas mainly when working with marginalised groups/cultures. ‘Liberation psychology’ is a concept that is most commonly associated with social action to alleviate personal and collective distress (Afuape, 2011) and that also has overlapped with dialogical and decolonising theories. T e approaches at empt to stand alongside people, working with them to develop collaborative relations that recognise power inequalities particularly, as liberation happens between people, not against, for or on behalf of others (Afuape, 2011). Opposite is a more detailed depiction


of our approach through the use of a daisy diagram. We would like to invite you to consider


your approach by drawing a similar daisy diagram, either on your own or in your teams, and if you would like to take it a step further, you might want to refl ect on the following questions: • Which petals have the loudest voices? • Which petals would you like to have more infl uence? • Do you think there is anything that is missing?


Context 169, June 2020


Engaging clients through re-engaging ourselves


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52