 |
Kristin Glaser and Eugene Gendlin, Main themes in Changes, a therapeutic community
|
|
|
|
We want to talk about some of the themes and principles that characterize our group. It is important to emphasize that although this may sound smooth or easy, our group has struggled through many difficult phases, some of which we thought we might not survive. It is precisely because we began with the same problems which most groups have but have come up with what we feel are fairly special resolutions that we want to share our ideas. One of these resolutions is that we can accept working at good ways without being there all the way. That means that we want to make very clear that this paper describes how we function when we are at our best, which is some of the time. Also, we are still developing and these things may change.
For us, community is a bunch of people with whom you can carry your living forward in a growing way, and take the steps which are next in your life. We view hang-ups not so much as bad stuff inside someone, rather as messed up relations or dead relations between people and as more living that needs to happen. So there isn't a difference for us between helping people inside or outside themselves. What we need and give each other is support, not just in a general emotional way but with whatever each of us is up against, whether it is being scared of going crazy or not being able to face moving one's stuff into a new apartment. There isn't a line for us between psychological and situational troubles, either way it's about trying to live.
People come to Changes for different reasons: to be useful, to learn therapy skills, to talk about problems, to find a social group or sexual relationship. We try to act as a resource network for each other. Changes is where I found a friend, someone taught me to change the oil in my car, it was where I found a roommate, where I found someone to listen. Often new people don't say what they had in mind about coming with us makes no difference whether people came for help or came to help. We make no distinctions. Sooner or later, everybody is likely to do both and we emphasize both when we talk about Changes to new people. New people are told that everybody there might help, that we believe in asking people to listen, that you should feel free to try out several people and see who clicks.
But apart from such specific needs, most people lack a community (sometimes they even lack people altogether, let alone a community). An important part of being a community is to be a place where people can try to find new ways of being themselves. For us, community is where you can be in touch with all parts of yourself, including the inside stuff that’s not all clear, or that doesn't look good, or that's isolated or seems like nothing is there. This means needing a place that allows experimentation, that allows the old ways to go slowly, that tolerates crumminess. To let each of us live and be visibly there, it takes not being down on anything that comes out, it takes not trashing each other for our bad ways. This means that in Changes we need great tolerance for differences. You don't have to be like me to come.
|
|
|
I may want you to be like me, but it needs to be OK that you aren't. I may give you feedback, but I won't yell and scream and say you can't be a Changes person. By trying to feel comfortable with people who aren't like me, we can allow people to be with us who may still be stuck in life styles that we don't think much of or who have a new ideology different from our own. People need support if they want to change, and everybody needs to be able to bring out their doubts and fears about where they stand - instead of always having to present what one believes as if it were airtight and doubtless.
One of the differences in people that we accept is that the drive toward community varies greatly in people. Sometimes it varies in the same person over time - wanting closeness and then retreat. Several times people in our group declared their sober intention of having a very close community and then didn't come back the next week. The way we have dealt with this is to not push for closeness, but offer opportunities for it. We accept the ebb and flow of close/apart as a natural part of our group process rather than a source of disappointment.
A difference which most groups face is on ideas of how the group should be run. Within our group there were differences on amount of structure (loose organic development vs imposed structure) and on amount and type of leadership. Initially there was a great deal of hassling and bad feelings about this, but a resolution emerged, we aren't clear just how. One historic moment, though, was realizing that a group with as many different points of view as ours was so loose that no one in a leadership position could take power and walk off. In fact, there was nothing we couldn't afford to lose. There was little money and people did what they wanted. How the group currently operates is that whoever is concerned about issue makes decisions about that which people can then participate in or not. If there is some kind of strong disagreement by the group as a whole, the decision can later be reversed. For example, people who are concerned about arranging training programs for Sunday night get together, announcing to the group at large that anyone interested should come and make plans. A small group then meets, makes the arrangements and most of the other people are glad that someone has done this for them. A few may not like the plan and won't participate. When they become concerned enough they initiate their own program suggestions. For us, structure is good if it is flexible, not mandatory, and open to change by the group.
Group housekeeping happens similarly. Whoever wants to do work does, others don't. There is a lot of noise and encouragement about doing it though. Those who want to be the organizers and doers go ahead, discuss it at an occasional " coordinators" meeting that gets called, and make brief announcements in the Sunday meeting. If someone decides that she wants to do some publicity, for instance (and it usually needs to be done), she will probably check around to see what has been done before and then go ahead and make up her own posters, news stories, whatever. Then, if someone else in the group doesn't like what came out, he can say something about it or just go ahead and put out his own publicity.
|
|
|
One particular happening does not seem crucial. Almost no work has to be done and it doesn't matter if it is done " wrong. " Somehow, we aren't terribly invested in our " good name”. What has happened is that with a few awful exceptions, people have pretty much gotten the hang of what we are about before they launch into any kind of independent work so that we have had little to regret from what people have taken on. (The one place where we are more structured has been about scheduling and training for the hotline, but this has been possible because more organized, structure-oriented people have volunteered to coordinate here. )
Although there have been times when this doesn't happen, a central coordinator has always seemed useful. Considered the " shitwork" coordinator, this person usually works for about three months and then retires, exhausted. On all jobs, people do what they want and quit when they've had enough. When people feel the freedom to say " no" or " enough" without feeling guilty, they also feel comfortable about coming back for more.
This means that our large Sunday meetings are where training or other ways of getting into each other happen while business is taken care of by a small group. We see this as a third model: the first might be the old autocratic one in which a small group decides everything (the board or executive committee). The second is participatory democracy where everybody has to decide everything. Our third model lets anyone participate in decisions who wants to (anyone can be a leader; planning meetings are open) but doesn't put the whole group into the interminable hassles on trivia which the second model involves. (In a way, most organizations in the world don't put their main energies into what they are supposed to be about, but instead, waste it on infighting and organizational hassles, and this seems just as true of the participatory model as it was in the old model). It has been good for us to spend our main big group time on what we're really about and separate business off but it is open to anyone who wants into it.
Although there are some problems with this division of business and training/getting into each other (like not enough rewards for workers), it worked wonders in getting us past a very bad time in Changes which seemed to be all hassling. We found that it can be very bad to mix business and getting into each other - everyone is impatient to get essential business done and nobody wants to hear anybody. Personal feelings are just in the way and aren't heard but business also doesn't get done. The division makes it possible for necessary things to be done (and most people in Changes are glad whatever way they are made to happen) and also, in the personally focused bigger meetings, the division makes it possible to enjoy each other's experiences and growth steps.
Just as the ideological differences about structure were worked through, we found that other ideological differences could survive in the group and even enhance it. Recently, we don't spend much time talking about ideological differences as a group, but when we do, no-one may trash another for any reason, particularly for an idea. (There seems to be a craziness when principles, especially those about freedom, liberation, equality are applied with old coerciveness and one-upping. )
For us, when there is open discussion between opposite views, there can be a lively tension generated that brings energy into the group. On all our differences - whether about money, therapy, responsibility, leadership, etc. - if we talk openly, listen carefully, give the other side respect and feel that we don't have to go one way or the other, a good process seems to evolve. For instance, most of us are deeply opposed to hospitalizing anyone, but some feel that in a last resort, this could be done. When a decision had to be made about a real person, it was more important for us to listen to each other than make an abstract policy rule. Those who were afraid to let the person remain outside got to hear how those against hospitalization felt and why. The person involved was present, and although very freaky, clearly became more sane just by being talked about honestly and being cared about. This particular discussion led to a less anxious feeling on everyone’s part which allowed us to " wait and see, " which turned out to be the right thing.
|
|
|
Another part of talking about ideas is that if we stick with one person's thinking, finding out what that is for her personally (usually getting into her feelings), things become much clearer and the grimness with which the idea is held may soften. For example, in a Changes meeting where we were talking about crashing people, one woman dominated the meeting, insisting very emotionally that we should not put people up any more. We attended to her, listening to her point, asking her to say more, waiting for her to think and say what her feelings were, and we found that when she really got into herself (and that took a while), the reason she wanted us to stop crashing was that she felt like often she was the one who had to take people home when no one else would. When we supported her right to say " no, " and she could feel comfortable with this, we no longer needed a group policy decision about whether we " should" or " shouldn't. " This illustrates another principle, that of attending individual needs over what seems to be the group needs. The group wanted to continue its general conversation about crashing, but it was more important to get in a good listening way with this woman. Eventually, however, it was better for the general group process to have done so since we then did not have to deal with an " unreal" policy decision. 
One principle that we have always had is that Changes should be an open group. This means that everyone is welcome at all times, there is no exclusivity, there is no distinction between new and old as far as participation goes. Yet, like most groups, we had the problem of then always having to start over again for the newcomers, having to explain what Changes was each meeting, having to justify our ideas. Worse, it was hard to develop steady work relationships and get any closeness. Now Changes has an open large group with closed subgroups within. What this means is that the group as a whole is completely open - anyone can come and participate at any time, but that also, there have developed some natural groupings of friends and special groups which are relatively stable and may be closed to newcomers. Currently there are phone teams, a dream study group, a " skill sharing community, " three women's groups, a men's group, living together groups, and probably others that we don't know about. Within these small groups there are intimate bonds and a sense of group development. The continual openness of the large group is fine as long as you also have the closeness of friends and a sense that work (or process or whatever) can go on without continually being flooded by newcomers. The small groups bring their style of close relating and warmth to the larger groups. We find that some people being intimate helps others of us to be intimate rather than cutting us off, as we had once feared.
How is elitism avoided when there are exclusive small groups? First of all, the groups are not secret and not completely exclusive; people can usually join if they want to make a commitment. But, if too many people want to be with that group, the old group can help a new group make their own thing. This was done by the women's group when it came to have 18 members and more wanted to come. They split into subgroups with new and old members in each subgroup and after a while it was possible to let the new members form their own group. When we are willing to share what we have, we don't feel that we are being elitists.
|
|
|
We had also worried that the small groups might splinter the large group. Why would they stick around once they had their small community defined? What happened, however, is that the people in the small groups still need the larger group.
People are still committed to the larger Changes idea of the therapeutic community, people still want to get the training, people still want to be helpful and they aren't getting all their varied needs met. A combination of large and small group experience seems to be the most gratifying.
When new people come to Changes, they are asked to participate in whatever ongoing Process is happening, whether it's a heavy meeting or an intimate personal conversation. For instance, if a new person wanders into a meeting, someone will come over and say " Hi" but then he will have to sit through whatever we are doing - whether it's a boring business meeting or a listening training session. Or if someone wanders into the office when two people are into a heavy rap, she will be asked to draw up a chair and sit in. This means that maybe she will say nothing for half an hour but when she does it will be intimate, since that's what is going on. She may say something of how " I've been in that bad place, too. " The point of this is that we do not drop our stuff to deal with him and therefore his first response has to be at our deep level rather than at a superficial initial contact level. Afterwards, we try to get with him where he is at - either individually or by sitting down with all the new people to find out what they want for themselves.
Regardless of what is happening, the new people are a part of it by just being there, and if they come again they aren't new anymore.
Our speciality is getting with each other in a good listening way that allows the talker to get as deeply into himself as possible. This process, called “listening" and " focusing" is discussed in depth in this book, so we just want to talk about it briefly here. Our belief is that most people are very much caught up in the top of themselves. They are tied into roles, patterns of being that control much of their action and thinking. Very rarely do we take the time to find out how we feel about what's happening, or what we are doing. In Changes, we try to encourage this and train each other to help do this. If someone is able to listen well, not putting in much of his own thing, reflecting the talker's feelings and giving him full attention, the speaker may be able to get past his immediate fast thoughts and into a slower, not so clear place that if explored gently, may bring him some kind of sense of how he feels. lf I am feeling vaguely upset but not clear what that is about I may ask someone to help me focus. I need to relax, take a deep breath and get down into myself, into some vague liberated zone that is not cut and drawn into all the pieces that I usually think are me. When I get to that place, I may get feelings, images, words that tell me what is going on. The person who is being with me helps support me, attends to me, lets me find me in the fullest sense. What this process does is to let me know how I really feel so that I can then go on to the next life action with some clarity. " I know this is going to be difficult and uncomfortable, but here I come. "
Then after I am in the action, I may check inside again to find out how it goes.
Usually the Sunday night program is devoted to some kind of listening training that includes practicing in small groups and pairs. There are a number of more advanced training groups which meet during the week. A large portion of people in Changes exchange listening, hour for hour, with each other.
Part of our being a therapeutic community is that we can have some pretty heavy people in the community with us. (A " heavy" person is someone who is very unhappy, far from getting his needs met, freaky, or whatever to whom at first, I get a gut reaction of " Oh, I don't think l can handle this. " ) Because there is so much going on, largely these people are able to be in the community and not be defined as special. However, sometimes we form teams around a heavy person so that no one needs to work alone and people can feel free to only do as much as they want. Rather than offering phony friendship or playing the doctor/therapist, each team member offers the heavy person a similar relationship to that he would any person in our community. Being a community person means offering a basic level of caring, concern and resources and if the heavy person doesn't want to be at the helped end of a relationship, she can reciprocate. It's important to emphasize that we don't feel that we have to do more for a heavy person than we would for anyone else. We do what we can but we can't accept ultimate responsibility for another person's life and needs. It’s really fine to ask for what you want, it’s fine to say no and it’s fine to back off then things got too deep. (Of course, we then try to find replacements. )
|
|
|
Another part of being a therapeutic community is that we don't make decisions about who can do what as far as work goes. This is particularly relevant to heavy people because by not labelling them " too crazy" to do something, they may be encouraged to act in more healthy ways. Again, because we aren't that invested in what happens to our name and because no one works alone, we can invite a heavy person to work for us and we even encourage them to be on teams for other heavy people because they frequently know more than we do. This openness has been less true around the phones.
We don't do this enough, but we try to understand hassles in terms of what is happening between people rather than as bad stuff inside a person. We call this a heavy interaction analysis or systems analysis. So, if there is a bad process going on in a group or someone is acting weird, we try to take into account what everyone's part in the interaction is. For instance, if someone is acting strangely, I need to understand that this piece of behavior is a communication that is necessarily a two-way process. He does this and l feel that, so I do this. When I can understand my part in the process, maybe I can guess at his intent so that I can act differently. (It's always easier to change one's own behavior than someone else's. ) Maybe when I check inside I may find out that what the person is doing is actually a backwards way of saying " I need to get close. ” If I sort this out, maybe I can get a little closer rather than going away. Of course, good listening is always the best start. (A more detailed account of working with heavy people is in a later chapter of this book. )
When Changes is functioning anything like what we have outlined, we have a group going that allows its values and principles to serve it rather than dragging it down. We value openness and find ways to allow closeness, we have structure but no one has to use it if it doesn't work, we have leadership but they can't control people, we acknowledge people's drive toward community but respect their fear of it, we acknowledge that we have crummy ways but allow them to change slowly, we tolerate and welcome differences because they don't have to affect everyone. Basically, we see a therapeutic community as one that welcomes people where they are at, not demanding change but making as much space as possible for people to change. We make that space for people by not making demands but at the same time making clear what is possible for people in terms of getting into themselves, work, relationships. We offer people a chance for in-depth communication with themselves and others. As far as our group life goes, we are willing to strike a balance between our ideals and what seems to work.
We seem to operate with a theme of acceptance of most of what comes up. We try to have a positive atmosphere, a belief that caring, trust, and being relaxed produces good things although you may have to go through a heavy struggle before you get there.
|
|
|
