NUMBER 133 • 18 OCTOBER 2002 •  RELATIONSHIPS
INDEX OF QUOTES

Relationship is a dangerous and curious word. It can be used to cover a multitude of interactions, shallow or deep, profitable to the individuals concerned or perhaps even damaging. It is necessary, therefore, to try to specify the criteria by which one may recognize a good relationship. In essence, we can recognize a good relationship between two people when they can be, to some extent, less defended with one another than is generally the case in their social interactions and when this leads to a situation in which there is some mutual recognition, implicit or explicit, of their actual or potential value and threat to one another.

Used in this way, it seems useful to say that the establishment of good relationships between at least some members of the staff and other staff, some staff members and some children, and some children one with another describes the achievement of a way of living for a group of individuals in one limited sense of that phrase.

The topic of ‘good relationships’ could involve us in very wide-ranging discussion, so much must remain unsaid in what follows. But it will be useful to list, very briefly, some of the factors that seem to be necessary for the establishment of good relationships in all settings and then to expand on those which are of peculiar importance in the residential setting.

For there to be a possibility of good relationships developing we can say that there has to be:

  1. a channel of communication between the two parties and some mutually understood language;

  2. a minimal readiness to interact, brought about either by some implicit, or explicitly agreed contract, or by some shared activity or circumstance;

  3. a capacity, at least minimally in both parties, to put together and recognize in oneself and in the other the personal significance of at least some of the multitude of small events which constitute the interaction between the two;

  4. some awareness, often implicit, to the influence on behaviour of bodily states, the immediate social setting, and the past history of the individuals concerned.

To these, (which are almost a priori conditions deriving from the definition) I think most ‘counsellors’ would add:

  1. a sense, at least minimally in both parties and probably more strongly in one party, of one’s own value as a person and thus of some responsibility and concern for oneself and for the other;

  2. a capacity on both sides to wait on events to some extent.

This implies some perception of oneself and the other as separate, ongoing and potentially independent as well as dependent, and is some guarantee against attempts at total take-over of the other person or an invasion by one party of defences which the other is not prepared to lower or disarm.

In any given situation it may be difficult to achieve these conditions because of the nature and personal resources of the parties involved. For example, one person may be ‘deaf’ to a particular channel of communication used by the other, or unable to switch to another channel. (‘I don’t know what he is getting at’ or ‘what is this strange behaviour going on now?’) Or one person may be unable to ‘hear’ the other, not because he cannot normally do so, but because there is so much irrelevant ‘noise’ going on that the important signal cannot be distinguished. (‘I didn’t realize Joe was so upset because Jane, Gill and Jack were clamouring for attention’ or ‘because I was so cross at his messing his pants’.)

It becomes clear from this that staff in residential units must pay attention to all the persons they are involved with i.e., to each individual’s potential to understand a language, to interact, to integrate interaction in the present, past and possible future, to value themselves and to respect (i.e., appreciate the value of) others. Ultimately the children too must be able to do some of this themselves and be aware of some of all this in others.

These potentials, and the awareness of them, roughly outline the interpersonal context of good relationships between children and grown-ups. But the social context of the unit in which all these people operate and its compounding with their particular natures and resources is often as important, if not more so. This is particularly true in residential work, and other ‘life space’ situations where members of a group have little choice but to continue to interact, more or less publicly, in a whole variety of life situations, some defined by external demands (e.g., provision of food only at meal-times), some by internal stresses (e.g., having a temper tantrum or a headache), and some by a combination of these (e.g., coping with a child in a temper tantrum when it is time for school and it is your half-day off).

Accepting this formulation it can be seen how agreement on arrangements for daily living affects good relationships and vice versa. A very large number of interactions will take place in response to the demands of system maintenance. A large number — perhaps as many or more — will take place in situations where these demands are minimal or absent. One cannot say that the former are more or less important than the latter in making good relationships but they are different in quality and should be recognized as such.
 


CHRISTOPHER BEEDELL
Beedell, C. (1970). Residential life with children. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp.84-87