Stereotyped behaviours ... and how they should 'be seen in the context of concern with the whole person'

Having recently set out some guidelines on working with someone with a range of potentially socially isolating self-involved or self-stimulatory or stereotyped or repetitive/perseverative behaviours (various people, from various backgrounds, can and do label these behaviours in various ways) and advocating that staff should find ways to positively join in with them, I then found myself re-reading some interesting stuff by Melanie Nind and Mary Kellett.

This really powerful stuff looked at professional's (whoever they might be) views of some people's 'stereotyped' behaviours; and also how those working through Intensive Interaction might alternatively see them, and more importantly how we (as II practitioners) might subsequently positively respond  to these behaviours - this I think being at the very heart of the, for some, very radical nature and values of Intensive Interaction. I reproduce some of it below:

'Traditionally, professionals working with individuals with severe learning difficulties who demonstrate stereotyped behaviours, such as rocking and hand-flapping, have viewed such behaviours as undesirable, inappropriate and in need of reduction or elimination. This perspective is influenced by notions of readying those individuals for mixed settings, educating, training or modifying them to help gain their acceptance. Intensive Interaction is an alternative approach for working with individuals with complex difficulties that responds positively to them and their stereotyped behaviours, sometimes using these as a point of connection.'

(Abstract: Nind, M. & Kellett, M. (2002) Responding to individuals with severe learning difficulties and stereotyped behaviour: challenges for an inclusive era, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(3), 265-282.)

They then go on to say: 'Intensive Interaction sets out to enhance social and communication abilities and not to reduce stereotyped behaviours. However, findings from two studies of Intensive Interaction ... show some reduction in stereotyped behaviours are reported and discussed' [in their 2002 paper cited above]. 

So, it is because we (as Intensive Interaction practitioners) show value to the whole person, and sensitively and positively respond to such stereotyped behaviours, that subsequent to that, they might naturalistically/indirectly reduce as joint, mutually enjoyable and socially interactive behaviours increase.

In the same journal issue Melanie and Mary also responded to some other academics' responses variously critiquing [both positively and negatively] their articulation of the Intensive Interaction approach (crikey they must have been busy!); again I shamelessly reproduce some of this below: 

'We do not regard concern with stereotyped behaviours as redundant ... but we do maintain that the behaviours need to be seen in the context of concern with the whole person ... The worth of people with learning difficulties is neither negotiable nor dependent upon any particular set of behaviours ... The pressure felt by staff, supporting children and adults in ordinary community settings, to have them behave ‘normally’ is very real to them ... We have to live with the tension of valuing people as they are and wanting developmental change for them; how we respond to them as people is how we show our value of them. The issue is one of unconditional positive regard; people who have stereotyped behaviours should not have to alter them to gain our positive regard*'

Nind, M. &  Kellett, M. (2002) 'Response' by Melanie Nind & Mary Kellett to 'Commentary on: Nind & Kellett (2002)' by  Goldbart, J./Harris, J./Hogg, J. in Eur. J. of Special Needs Education, 17(3), 299–300.

*My underlining for emphasis! ... and I think I need say no more!