'Integrationism' ... a new-ish view of co-constructed communication!
I was thinking about this the other week when I met 3 different people who all seemed to have high levels of language comprehension, but who all seemed to exhibit complex psychological, social and communication impairments in very different ways. I was meeting them with a hopeful expectation that some form of Intensive Interaction would be both 'the means and the ends' of our encounter (i.e. that Intensive Interaction would be both the form of the communication, and the outcome produced by it). However, as I was meeting them I also started to wonder what they, the 3 very different service users, were expecting from their encounter with me, and what outcome they may have had in mind for any potential communication with me.
In the book 'Understanding Intensive Interaction: Context and Concepts for Professionals and Families' (JKP, 2010) I briefly introduce the (hopefully interested) reader to a model of communication called 'integrationism' (Harris, 2006). So I have been back and had a look at this 'integrationist' view of communication, a view that does not accept the simple 'sender-receiver' transmission model of communication (i.e. that the act of communication is a simple transfer of information between two, or more, human beings). This 'integrationist' view also rejects the idea that communication is a process that is bound by concrete symbolic representations and formal linguistic rules. Instead the integrationist view sees communication as a dynamic and creative process that requires ‘the integration of activities’ of two people to communicate meaning between them, with such ‘integrated activities’ being simultaneously co-created by the participants to purposely share meaning, both verbally and non-verbally ... hhmm, does that sound familiar?
Additionally, from the integrationist viewpoint, any communication situation is defined by three distinct ‘parameters’, these being: 1. the individual capabilities of the individual participants; 2. the cultural practices of the participant’s community or social grouping; 3. the specific circumstances of the communication setting or situation.
According to this integrationist view, to understand a communication situation, we should simultaneously consider a participant’s present capabilities, acknowledge the impact of their previous communications experiences, and also consider any expectations a person has of what will be the outcome of the communication situation (this being informed by their previous communication experiences). So this integrated view of a 'present, past and future' contextualised communication scenario is what sparked my thoughts.
From our position as Intensive Interactors, acknowledging such an integrationist view can help us reflect on the central role of context (past, present and future 'expectation') in defining a potential communication situation. We should therefore accept that the current context of a communication situation will include the environmental setting (yes, obviously), but it will also include the person's own social and historical context. We may have to somehow accommodate the enduring influence of any previous problematic social or communication experiences encountered by the person, as these influences will to some degree always be present for them in all subsequent communications (and I think this was very much the case for the 3 people I met the other week).
So perhaps we need to allow for, or even sometimes expect, a negative expectation of a social encounter from some people; indeed a person may well feel indifferent, defensive or even hostile towards any perceived communicative ‘intrusion’ based on their prior experiences. Some people may initially react very negatively to any social encounter they perceive as potentially directive, or that carries any level of demand on them to alter their behaviour in some way. Thus we may need to create many positive, or at least initially many non-aversive social experiences before we can expect the person to alter their expectations of social communication situations to a more positive (or at least less negative) one.
In such cases I initially try to give such people repeated experiences of me being present, but essentially (even minimalistically) responsive, to make the initial stages as demand-free as possible, and thus to cumulatively improve their expectations of any future social situations. If the person’s expectations alter, to allow for the possibility of potentially positive interactions, then they are far more likely to eventually become active and dynamic participators in co-constructed, integrated, and therefore mutually meaningful interactivity.
In such cases I initially try to give such people repeated experiences of me being present, but essentially (even minimalistically) responsive, to make the initial stages as demand-free as possible, and thus to cumulatively improve their expectations of any future social situations. If the person’s expectations alter, to allow for the possibility of potentially positive interactions, then they are far more likely to eventually become active and dynamic participators in co-constructed, integrated, and therefore mutually meaningful interactivity.
Firth, G., Berry, R. & Irvine, C. (2010) 'Understanding Intensive Interaction: Context and Concepts for Professionals and Families', London, JKP.
Harris, R. (2006) Integrationist Notes and Papers 2003-2005, Crediton, Tree Tongue.
Harris, R. (2006) Integrationist Notes and Papers 2003-2005, Crediton, Tree Tongue.
No comments:
Post a Comment