CONTENTS

EDITORIAL

Committed to the relational

Sadly, it seems that a lot of programs for young people are still committed to an old model of control and punishment, basing their actions on the mistaken (yes, I said mistaken) assumption that punishment actually works.

I know most of us wouldn’t use the word punishment. We are too politically astute for that, so we usually disguise punishment, at least verbally, as ‘negative reinforcement’ or ‘consequences’ or even, in those programs that are intellectually honest, as the simple fact that ‘the child needs to learn a lesson’.

Over the years numerous professionals have leapt in to the argument, explaining just why punishment-oriented models don’t work and why a more relationship-based model is preferable. Indeed, if one reads the postings on the CYC-Net discussion group, the issue raises its head every few months and the argument begins again. After a while one begins to wonder why it is that we keep going back to this discussion, over and over. Well, truth is, there are a lot of reasons why we return to it. One, without getting in to it too deeply, is that, in general, western society lives this model. Just witness current world events. Punish the transgressor and all will be well. Might makes right. We are raised in this model. Most of us, unfortunately, learn it from the cradle on. Schools are based on it. Laws are implemented according to it. Many relation- ships reflect it. But that doesn’t mean its right. Or that it works. I digress, but it is important to take note of the context in which we come to accept certain beliefs. As Bruner (1990) said, it is part of what creates our cultural myths about behaviours, their meaning and how we respond to them.

Many programs which work from a control and punishment model (let’s call it what it is, after all) define themselves as behaviourist or behavioural, drawing their rationale from an unfortunate misinterpretation of what the architect of all this really said. And I understand how that happens. We take classes and workshops in which supposed experts explain the difference between positive and negative reinforcement and the relationship between reinforce- ment and behavioural change. It sounds good and it fits with our experience of the world we live in. And it seems to work so we accept it as truth.

But for some reason, we missed an early part of this debate. So, for whatever reason, I went back recently and re-read Walden Two, B.F. Skinner’s classic description of a community based on the principles of behavioural engineering. In it one finds the following statement:

“The old school made the amazing mistake of supposing ... that by removing a situation a person likes or setting up one he doesn’t like – in other words by punishing him – it was possible to reduce the probability that he would behave in a given way again. That simply doesn’t hold. It has been established beyond question ... We are gradually discovering – at an untold cost in human suffering – that in the long run punishment doesn’t reduce the probability that an act will occur.” (Skinner, 1948, p. 244)

Well, now, that’s pretty clear. I find it interesting that even the founder of the contemporary behaviourist movement connected punishment and human suffering. For him, it seems, the relationship was clear. Punishment, however we call it, causes suffering. And punishment just does not work.

Skinner then goes on to explain that while, in the short term, punishment and/or negative reinforcement may seem to reduce the behaviour or act, it does nothing to eliminate the tendency to act in that way. As Skinner says, speaking about the outcome of punishment, “we haven’t really altered his potential behaviour at all” (p. 245). Indeed he even suggests that if the offending behaviour does not appear in our presence, it will continue to appear some- where – either in the presence of someone else, or in the ‘disguise of a neurotic symptom’.

So, why am I writing this? I am not a committed behaviourist. But, to be honest, I must admit that there was a time in my career when I spent my days with points and levels, rewards and punishments and believed that without punishment there would be no change. But now I am committed to a relational style of practice. I no longer believe in control and punishment. However, I do recognise that in the field we work in this is, and probably always will be, a hot topic – an on-going discussion. And I thought that if we are going to continue having this debate, we should at least listen to what the founder had to say in the first place.

But if we are going to go back to the older writers, I personally prefer, among others:

Aichorn, (1935) who stated that a caring affectionate relationship was preferable to punishment,

Redl (1950) who believed that each young person was unique and required a unique approach in the context of a special relationship,

Bettelheim (1950), who advocated that young people needed central figures in their lives who would attend to the interactive relationship,

Burmeister (1960) who argues for the place of caring in the therapeutic relationship,

Maier (1960) who encourages us to think in terms of attachment and nurturance, or

Beedel (1968) who believed in a focus on the growth of relationships.

The focus on relationships and the relational is not new in the helping professions. It is not even new in the field of Child and Youth Care. Yet it seems that many look at a relational approach as if it was something invented by contemporary practitioners, eager to engage in intimate ways with young people and their families. As the above references indicate, this is just not so. Relations and relation- ship have been a part of Child and Youth Care practice for as long as there has been written material and surely long before that as well. It seems that it has just taken us, as a field, this long to catch up to what some of the founding writers of our field have had to say. Perhaps we just don’t read enough to realise that this focus has been here for a long time. Perhaps, it is just that a relational approach is experienced by many as more complex, more demanding, more difficult. And it is. There is no question about it. It demands closer attention to interaction, a greater willingness to risk self in relationship, and a commitment to hanging in through good times and bad, as we recognise that there is an ebb and flow to the evolution of a therapeutic, healing relationship. It also demands that we approach our relationships with other profess- ionals, organisations and services with the same commitment.

A relational approach, as Brian Gannon notes in this issue, offers “a prototype for special and personal relationships the youngster will establish and live through with other people in the future.” (Gannon, 2003, p.7) It establishes a foundation for future possibilities, an alter- native to those relationships which a young person and family might have experienced to date. It offers hope for a different future. A way of being with others, which allows the young person and family to see a different future for themselves and those they care about.

A relational approach does not, however, advocate permissiveness and a lack of necessary controls (a common misperception!). As Varda Mann notes (Mann, 2003, p.9) it is only through “the integration of relatedness and control that optimal growth and develop- ment can be encouraged” for the young person. But this is not control in the old authoritarian, power-based manner. It refers, rather, to the presence of the necessary clarity, boundaries and relationship-based expectations that provide containment while promoting empowerment and growth. It is the balance that is important.

In the end, perhaps the most important issue is that a relational approach offers hope for a different future; one in which people live in a caring manner with one another. One in which the relationship is considered central to growth and development. One in which young people and their families find themselves valued, respected and encouraged.

Bibliography

Aichorn, A. (1935). Wayward Youth. New York, NY: Viking Press.

Beedel, C. (1968) The residential setting and the worker’s tasks within it. Approved Schools Gazette. LXI (2)

Bettelheim, B. (1950). Love is not enough: The treatment of emotionally disturbed children. New York: Free Press.

Burmeister, Eva E. The Professional Houseparent. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Gannon, B. (2003). The improbable relationship. Relational Child and Youth Care Practice. 16(3), 5-8

Maier, H. W. (1960). Essential ingredients for the care and treatment of children in child care institutions, (pp. 1-16). Proceedings of the third annual conference of the Nebraska conference on child care. Nebraska Psychiatric Institute.

Mann, V. (2003). Relatedness and control. Relational Child and Youth Care Practice. 16 (3), 9-13

Redl, F., & Wineman, D. (1951). Children who hate: The disorganization and breakdown of behavior controls. New York: The Free Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1948) Walden Two. New York: MacMillian

Thom

thom@cyc-net.org
www.cyc-net.org/transformaction

______________