focus from the Scottish Government for engaging fathers more actively in children’s lives and, having celebrated the ‘Year of the Dad’ in 2016, we thought they might be keen for us to focus on this and be interested to attend, which they did. The day itself fell on a chilly Monday in


Edinburgh, delivered at the Royal Society, a rather grand building fi lled with portraits of many great men. There were up to eighty trainers and trainees due to attend and we were set up in a lecture theatre setting. Despite this, the day was able to be interactive, refl ecting Ged’s skill in sharing his ideas and helping others engage with them. The day was marked for a number of us


by the very recent loss of one of our trainers, Sheena Allan Paterson. Sheena died after the return of cancer which progressed with shocking speed and we were meeting between her death and her funeral, which was due to happen later in the week and which a number of us were going to be attending. Sheena was not someone who missed professional development events, and would have been attending. The event therefore started with a moment of refl ection, a powerful reminder of the fragility and preciousness of life, and a commitment to continue with the day with the passion that Sheena would have brought had she been there.


Alison This day was a great opportunity for the


Family Therapy Training Network community and others, with the support of the Scottish Government, to consider a crucial factor in providing eff ective services. That the training had government support underlined for me the fact that the issue was seen to need serious and practical consideration. We had an excellent speaker, known for his work and ongoing curiosity in this domain. I thought he did a great job, generously (and bravely) imparting ideas and knowledge accrued via research and inviting others’ ideas to further the considerations. Most pertinent for me was the idea that


you should ‘name the dilemma’ and ask for guidance from family, without discounting that you can come back to the issue you feel is highlighted to explore further. Ged provided loads of examples of ways to do this. He also underlined context throughout, which I felt was really helpful for some of our trainees who were also able to be there on the day, most especially in relation to ‘cutting the crap’; that is, straight-speaking,


52


and ideas about ‘authority of role’ and the implicit question about whether the ability to confront was in some way constrained by the individual practitioner’s experience and sense of it being okay and, in my view, likely agency support if a complaint arose. Language, and use of such was enhanced


by the fact we had Polish, Spanish and German fi rst-speakers attending. Ged also provided clear examples of gendered language in this context. I thought there was an additional richness provided because of the dialogue that arose with the audience. I was invited, by way of recently reading


Poverty Safari (McGarvey, 2017), to think again about intersectionality and the possible minimisation of social class within the social graces, which Ged had highlighted in his introduction, and also indirectly to learn more about the concept of “gas-lighting”, via a useful exercise about word associations; words, that invited beliefs about what had actually been said, and this provided for additional real learning for me. I considered the day to be worthwhile ‘beyond measure’. It is clear that patriarchy is ‘bad for all’, and perhaps a brief note that ‘matriarchy’ should also be considered as such.


Naomi Coming to the professional


development event from a person-centred psychotherapeutic background, I was curious as to what the day would hold. I was hoping for challenge and an opportunity to look at and stretch my own personal and professional boundaries: however, I felt slightly cautious as to whether the way of working Ged was presenting would match enough with my own experiences in therapeutic work for me to get what I hoped I could out of it. I found the day to be a very open exchange


of ideas and experiences in a well-held environment. I had the sense everyone’s opinions were actively encouraged, and I found both the participants and Ged open to new ways of looking at things. He came across to me as a person who is comfortable with who he is and the way he works: however, in that comfort, it didn’t seem he tried to hold any power – indeed, rather than just presenting the idea of challenge and risk taking, I had the strong sense Ged was also off ering us the opportunity to challenge him on his way of working, and to refl ect on our own methods, or ways of being with clients, in response to this. The overriding feeling I have been left with, following the day, is the vital


importance of the therapeutic relationship, both in its development, but also in its deepening continuity. I feel this goes across all modalities and the message that owning our own thoughts and feelings when in relationship with our clients and taking the risk in sharing these (all professional protocols observed!), has the potential to deepen the relationship and thereby precipitate lasting change in the client’s life. Has the day changed how I am with my


clients? Perhaps. If anything I have become more aware of the similarities between those working in diff erent fi elds and how there is far more that unites us in our work than divides us. The next time I am aware of the chance of risk in the room with a client and feel myself hesitating, I may just feel that slight extra prod of confi dence to trust in the process, to trust myself but, most importantly, to trust my relationship with my client to take that step and know through being open and real “cutting the bullshit” there is very little that cannot be shared in a good therapeutic relationship.


Final refl ections As a day, there was a real buzz as trainees


and trainers enjoyed lunch together, thinking about the ideas and considering how they might fi t in their own practice. We were joined in the audience by a Scottish Government senior civil servant as we debated and digressed around masculinity in particular, and we wondered how this might be experienced by a non-therapist. To our interest, he had not been previously exposed to many of the ideas, and left with a very diff erent understanding of the construction of identity, Sometimes, I think we forget about the wider application of our ideas to the public at large and those shaping policy and priorities, and this was a timely reminder for us to make sure we continue to invite others from outside the fi eld into our events.


References McGarvey, D. (2017) Poverty Safari: Understanding The Anger Of Britain’s Underclass. Edinburgh: Luath Press. Scottish Government (2016) National Outcomes. Available http://www.gov.scot/About/ Performance/scotPerforms/outcome Scottish Government (2017) GIRFEC. Available http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young- People/gettingitright Smith, G. (2011), Cut the crap: Language – risks and relationships in systemic therapy and supervision. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32: 58-69. Smith, G. (2013) Working with men in systemic therapy: Challenging masculinities. Human Systems, 24: 51-64.


Context 155, February 2018


Cutting the crap together: A report on a collaborative training event in Scotland


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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64