'Being with' - some more Intensive Interaction thoughts …

As I said in my last blog, I am currently reading the new Intensive Interaction book 'Integrating Intensive Interaction' - I'm a really slow reader! 

The bit that is making me think this week (it's like I can only have one thought a week - and to be honest, that is probably just about enough for me) comes from the chapter: ‘Intensive Interaction: from Einstein to Lady Gaga’ by Ben Smith (what a title Ben, that's brilliant!). 

In this chapter Ben, a team leader in the West Wales Specialist Behaviour Team, recounts how Intensive Interaction changed his focus from just behavioural modification to also look at relationship development and emotional well-being. Ben’s re-evaluation came about through his work with a socially isolated man called Mick, but he also talks more generally about using behavioural approaches with service users.

'...utilising often powerful reinforces and incentives to get ‘control’ over or suppress other human beings behaviour in order to attain participation and activity engagement goals or ‘better quality of life’ feels somewhat adrift of the care values statements of many service or care providers (p 104).

He goes on to say: '... simply ‘being with’ each other has equal if not more significance than ‘doing things’ with each other and if the ‘being with’ is done well, it can be immensely mutually satisfying and pleasurable. (p107).

'Being with' is a term I seem to hear more often now, and I have previously tried to usefully define this state of ‘being with’ someone in an Intensive Interaction way (initially in 'Firth, G., Berry, R. & Irvine, C. (2010) Understanding Intensive Interaction: context and concepts for professionals and families, JKP: London), where I refer to it being synonymous with more prosaic phrases such as: ‘tuning in with’, ‘attuning to…’, ‘going with the flow’, ‘just hanging out with…’, ‘chilling out with’, ‘sharing quality time with…’. I go on to say that: 

Just ‘being with’ someone can only happen if we put to one side any agenda of physical care, behaviour modification or educative development, enabling us to share moments with people in a way that is truly non-directive. (p.58)

However looking at this now, I think that it defines 'being with' as some things or qualities that it isn't, and perhaps it would be better to also define it by the characteristics it actually possesses. So, my most recent attempt to pin it down (rationalised with the help of my most estimable colleague Dr Jon Wain) is that the state of ‘being with’ someone is a social state that is: 

Purely equitable, two way, task-less,  contingent, emotionally attuned, negotiated in structure, open ended, and purely social in nature. 

(Please see the colour-coded diagram below which sets 'being with' apart from other social (or non-social) contexts that people in support roles may also need to enact) 

Does that help?