A trap we can fall in talking and
interviewing is that we interpret what users say. By doing this we reveal that
we do not believe in their words at a face value. We are not just pretending to
be cleverer by doing this, but also take away the intended meaning, actually
take the word away from the user and discredit. Her or his word are
sequestered, seized. Such an expropriation is not pernicious only for the user by making him powerless in the talk exchange,
expressly in agreements and pacts, it is deleterious also for the professional
– who remains (alone) in the world of his or her own. Such perversion of words
is in function of power and self-assurance of power and is a calculus
differential of the guardian and custodian relations. In an equal relationship an
oath is not needed, we enter them bona
fide, trusting that the word uttered means what it means, and not something
else – until this is proved otherwise. Interpretation is a vehicle of stigma –
we assume a forehand that somebody is conveying something else; and of
domination – one who has the power has the “last word”.[1]
To avoid the pitfalls of
fetishisation of relationships and words we need to be remindful that
relationships and words are not the ends but only means of social work.
Establishing a relationship is a precondition and a tool we need for other
three operations.[2]
Words also a tool to do things, to create. Words in social work function as an
invitation to dance. Dance is the way of doing things together, of
complementing each other, exchanging places. It is the essential element of
syntax of acts (also speech acts). Besides the awe of not falling under spell
of these fetishes, we need to, in order to avoid the trap, design the talk and
relationship carefully, be attentive to the diagram and distribution of power,
dance the dance of a guardian and an advocate, give the word to the user and
take the word on its face value. For this, and of enacting true comradeship,
courage is needed.
To avoid such pitfalls we need to
maintain partisanship, to remain consistently on the user’s side. It also helps
to laugh at things and to – by not taking them too seriously, seriously deal
with them.
[1] Such a paranoid stance and operation is warranted in precisely
opposite direction – against those who possess a surplus of power, who have
hidden agenda and interests and want to use relationships or conversations for
their private benefit, therefore against those who lie by definition –
politicians, merchants and other stockbrokers of human souls.
[2] As contended previously, the finalism of this operation beyond
actual work, would be creating comradeship. If that can be considered as a
contribution to the general social solidarity, seeing social workers and social
work milieu as basic reference group for users, or even exclusive connector for
social inclusion, would be next to capitulation of social work, certainly a
destitution and poverty for users. Unfortunately, this is the case often.
Sometimes even on the account of fetishisation of a relationship, more often
because people get stranded in such a lonesome position, state, not having
anyone left – having been deserted, their links departed, died, being in an
institution etc. In such circumstances the relationships, bonds are of crucial
importance, sometimes even the only tool of social work that is on disposal.
Here too, a relationship, an attachment, bond should be considered as
transitive. As a means that someone eventually expands his network again,
enters into other meaningful relationships and social happenings. As with an
infant, the parents are not the final destination.
