|
PRACTICE
Reaching beyond caring to loving in child and
youth care practice — II
Patti Ranahan
Abstract: This article presents a brief
look at incorporating the act of loving into the professional
helping relationship that is created in child and youth care
practice. The differences between the act of caring and the
meaning of loving are discussed. Through an exploration of the
author’s relationship with a child, the dangers of loving —
including the expectations of acceptance of the love being
given, expectations on the child to feel love, using love as a
reinforcer, and love leading to burnout — are discussed. A new
way of loving in child and youth care practice that allows for
the inclusion of loving in the helping relationship is explored
and experienced by the author. Implications for incorporating
love in child and youth care practice are discussed.
This is the
second of two parts.
SEE PART 1
A new way of loving in Child and Youth Care Practice
A new form of love. Yes, one that can be added to practice in
child and youth care. Love that is not based on reciprocation,
acceptance, or conditions. Love that will allow a boundary and not
be lost as it is when given as a commodity. This is not to say that
we as practitioners need to love everybody. In some — and maybe in
most — cases, professional caring is all that we reach with the
children we work with. There may not be enough time for love to be
fully expressed, as contracts are limited or children are moved to a
new home. A greater love, however, a more mature form of love, can
exist in practice when we choose to include it, even in a brief
moment of our connectedness with a child. The love of the potential
that people have, the value of human life, and the curiosity of each
individual’s subjective experience, brings child and youth care
practitioners together. The kind of love we can offer in a healthy
way for the children we work with and for ourselves as practitioners
is a different form of exchange. This love does not attempt to
compensate for love not received in the child’s past, nor does it
demand the child accept or give love in return. Such love can be
considered a lower form characterized by neediness, chemistry,
possession, or worship (Whitfield, 1985, as cited in Whitfield,
1989). Child and youth care practitioners can bring loving into
practice through the briefcase they are already carrying to work.
The briefcase they carry is their Self, and accessing love from this
place can bring into practice the love that is characterized by
freedom from expectation of return or acceptance. Whitfield (1989)
also suggests a higher form of love that includes a different form
of commitment, unconditional empathy and acceptance, and a peaceful
way of being that allows the practitioner to include loving in their
work with children.
Freedom
As I moved away from my old way of defining love in my practice
with the child I was working with, there came a sense of freedom
within me. To be able to truly express the loving part of my Self to
the child, regardless of his or her actions, allowed me to not only
let go of any reaction or hurt that I would receive, but also to
free myself to work with him more effectively. Feeling freedom out
of loving without definition does not come without struggle and
practice. At times I believed I could not be essentially human in
working from this place with him. It was difficult to not fall back
into the reciprocal way of loving or using my love as a commodity.
In order to incorporate love, and thus experience freedom, I needed
to find the loving place in my core Self and allow that to be
expressed in the relationship. It is in that place, the core Self
that we so often are challenged to bring into our practice, that
loving without a definition exists. Loving, expressed from the Self,
can be brought into child and youth care practice.
What an awesome task! So often I’ve heard from
other child and youth care workers about their struggle to not take
verbal abuse personally or not take acts of violence “to heart.” I
do not wish to minimize the effects of ad verse behaviour on the
practitioner, for I have myself experienced the exhaustion and
depletion of energy at the end of a work day. The awareness of Self,
and a boundary where the worker ends and the child begins, gives
freedom to continue to express loving. If I held onto all the
negative experiences I have had with the child, I would in a sense
no longer be free to work, and the child would no longer be free to
grow, for my perspective would be clouded with every action they
have ever taken. To love in practice, then, is to also be free.
Freedom allows the promotion of growth in the child and allows the
work to continue.
Commitment
The commitment I developed in the relationship with this child
also changed as the kind of love I put into my practice shifted. I
no longer have an “in it for the long haul” attitude, but am
committed to the relationship we have created together. Commitment,
then, is a dedication to the time we have, whether it is
predetermined by an outside agency or set by the children
themselves. It was important for me to shift in my way of being in
relationship with this child from looking at “being there” come what
may to demonstrating that I was there, present and available, in the
here and now. I remembered my belief in the uncertainty of time that
I may have with those around me. As I cross paths with others
throughout my life journey, I have realized that I may have people
in my life for years, or for days or even seconds. The commitment I
had found through this different form of love meant that while time
allows, I am present and there.
Unconditional acceptance and empathy
The unconditional acceptance and empathy aspect of love that can
be part of child and youth care practice can be the most difficult
to apply. Loving from the core Self has been challenging, albeit
rewarding, in the freedom it has supplied. Commitment has also come
swiftly for me, as I am able to see time as fleeting. Unconditional
acceptance and empathy is an expression of the loving part of our
Self that goes beyond an awareness and a commitment to the present.
To unconditionally accept and show empathy to the children we work
with is easy for the “likeables” (Perlman, 1979) who are attractive
and appreciative of our efforts. It is also easy to fall into
believing and using labels and negative perspectives fed to us by
other professionals about the children we work with. To
unconditionally accept means to face the “hard to reach,” who are
all too “often hard to love” (Perlman, 1979). It is easy to find in
my memory the faces of children to whom I have not been able to
express love. I remember avoiding them due to their smell, their
whining, or their “excessive” demands on my schedule. I realize now
that my avoidance was certainly not unconditional acceptance. I did
not demonstrate empathy, and therefore did not express love, and
inevitably, did little to care. Yet this remains as potentially the
most important part of loving that we, as child and youth care
practitioners, can bring into practice. Our commitment and Self can
be present, yet are infrequently obviously demonstrated or stated
beyond showing up for work or meetings regularly or having a
connection with a “likeable.” Unconditional acceptance and empathy,
however, enter into every conversation, every look, and every
interaction that we experience in our relationship with the child.
It is an invitation from the child and youth care practitioner to
the children to express their core Self. In the moments when it
comes forward it is welcomed and accepted without condition. When
the child I’m working with comes home from school after having a
fight with another student, how I respond sends a message about how
I accept him, how I understand his experience, and, essentially, how
I am loving. Through looking at him, and inviting him to bring his
Self forward without judgement, I am accepting him as an individual.
My acceptance cannot be based on who threw the first punch; it is
unconditional. As I ask about what feelings occurred for him during
the incident, and express how difficult the experience must have
been, I am demonstrating empathy, and therefore expressing love.
Unconditional acceptance and empathy includes an openness to the way
the children choose to express the loving part of their Self.
Inviting the children to bring this loving forward, through their
fears and constricting definitions, can create a connectedness in
the relationship beyond caring to loving. This may sound simplistic,
yet the energy and challenge in including this level of love has
been my greatest struggle that requires all of the other aspects of
love to be “working.” The integration of Self into practice and our
ongoing commitment to the children, the field, the present, and
humanity allow the demonstration of unconditional acceptance and
empathy. If I am not open to the child’s expression of Self, then
the acceptance of the child is conditional. If I am not committed to
the relationship I have with the children, then I will make little
attempt at using empathy to understand their experience of the
world. The energy, then, that it takes to go beyond caring to loving
in child and youth care practice must not be minimized. In my
beginnings of relationship with the child I work with, I described
my use of love as an intervention. This “early” love was easy. I was
fresh in the field and ready to give “love” to those that I believed
were in need of it. As demonstrated, that early love over time did
not continue to be useful. Yet, to only “care” about this child
appeared to me to only fulfill my job description. At the time I did
not fully understand the kind of love that can be seen as useful in
practice. I had closed the loving part of my Self off through the
layers of fears and definitions of love I had created. Through
ongoing shifts and changes, the new and higher love appeared. It
continues to challenge me in what it entails; yet from my experience
if it is my choice to include the loving part of my Self in my
practice with this child, I must prevail. “Even love must be worked
at” (Perlman, 1979).
Peace
I have begun to see through my experiences with the child I am
working with the kind of peaceful way of being Whitfield (1989) was
referring to in the realm of higher love. The tension and stress
that I initially felt in the early stages of my relationship with
this child stemmed from my own state of confusion regarding how to
move from caring to loving. The length of time and the intensive
involvement with him seemed to push me forward, yet I was uncertain
about where it was going. I believed caring to be the fulfillment of
the job that was required of me in that position as a child and
youth care worker. As I moved beyond caring, I did not have the
experience and education to know where loving could take me, nor how
to incorporate love in practice. I had layered the loving part of my
Self with definitions and fears, and therefore was confused as to
how to express love without expectation or condition. Thus I dabbled
in the dangers of love for some time, and our relationship became
stagnant. The frustration led to my burnout, for the love that I was
attempting to apply in the relationship was not conducive to
practice. Through my continued work with him, I have learned about
the higher form of love in practice. The peace that is now present
comes from knowing the freedom of loving within a boundary, being
confident in my commitment to the present, and showing unconditional
acceptance and empathy toward the Self that comes forward in the
child. The peace is the result of loving as a way of being and
allows me, as a practitioner, to be effective in my practice. Peace
may not always be constant throughout all my experiences as a child
and youth care worker in the past or in the relationships to come. I
have often retreated to my early definitions of loving when my fears
of losing my Self or loving too much are triggered. When I face a
relationship that I find difficult to incorporate love into, the
peace can come from reflecting on the work itself. Loving can be
expressed as a way of being, beyond the “unlikeables” that we have
difficulty facing, and beyond the constraints and pressures of the
work we are presented with. Loving the potential that each
individual has, including the potential that our ever-learning Self
has, can bring peace. Loving the dance in the relationships I bring
my Self to be a part of, and loving the new perspectives and
learning that come from each moment with another human being, can
also give me peace.
Implications for practice
I can see through my discussions with fellow child and youth
care workers how controversial the topic of incorporating loving in
our relationships in practice could be. The warnings would most
definitely be sounded around boundaries, being in agency, and
rescuing. My purpose is not to negate these dangers, and, as I have
described, I have entered into dangerous forms of loving in practice
that have hindered my effectiveness. I am also not implying that
every child and youth care worker is required to love. Caring is
what we are required to do in each relationship we help create with
the children we work with. The act of caring is concrete, specific,
and detailed and is part of the practice and title we share. Loving
is reaching a new plateau in practice and is about how I bring my
Self into the relationships I am involved in. If I choose to express
the loving part of my Self, I need to reach beyond my fears and
definitions of love. I need to be committed to the present, and show
unconditional acceptance and empathy when the child’s Self comes
forward. Love is a process, a way of being, an expression that moves
and shifts as I develop my style of practice. It challenges me and
demands I consistently show a clean slate presence, without
conditions, without grudges, and with an attempt to understand each
individual’s subjective experience as they tell me their story. The
expression of loving from the Self removes the barriers that may be
present in respect to allotted time for service, or the actions of
the child. The “enemies” of time or monetary constraints, agendas of
the agency we are employed by, or even the “unlikeable” qualities of
the child standing before us, all present us with a choice in how we
bring our Self into practice. I’m reminded of an all too familiar
precept that speaks to the expression of loving. “Love your enemies
as you love yourself.” At our very core exists the essence of loving
that can withstand the difficulties we may face in practice. Loving
is a way of being, an expression of our Self that can be realized
even in the face of the challenges of our work. It is without
condition and offers the rewards of peace and freedom. Yet it is
important to remember that we cannot bring what we do not have. We
most likely need to start at the beginning in our expression of
loving before we are able to face the child, the family, and the
challenges in our work. Loving our Self.
REFERENCES
Barends, A., & Harper, E. (1999). Relationships and
play. International Child and Youth Care Network. CYC-Online,
December 1999.] Available at
http://www.cyc-net.org/cycol-1299-barends.html
Denholm, C.J. (1990). Canadian child and youth care
1979-1989. Youth Studies, 9(2), 51-57.
Krumboltz, J.D., & Krumboltz, H.B. (1972).
Changing children’s behavior. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and
Schuster, Inc.
McKeen, J., & Wong, B. (1991). To be... love-ing...
to be.... Journal of Child and Youth Care, 6(4), 73-83.
Perlman, H.H. (1979). The heart of helping people.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Whitfield, C.L. (1989). Healing the child within.
Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.
This feature: Ranahan, P. (2000). Reaching beyond
caring to loving in child and youth care practice. Journal of
Child and Youth Care, 13 (4), pp.55-65
|
