Download Ethics - WordPress.com

Ethics in
the
Relational
Turn
https://au.pinterest.com/pin/197032552427242487/
“Problems are problems of a field and the
solutions are solutions of that field. Any process,
problem, creative advancement, solution to a
problem is a function of the relationship
between the people “of the field” and the field
as a whole” (Yontef, 2010, p. 42).
“..we are only selves insofar as we move in a
certain space of questions, as we seek and find
an orientation to the good” (Taylor, 1989, p.34).
What are“Ethics”?
• the discipline dealing with what is good and
bad and with moral duty and obligation
• a set of moral principles : a theory or system
of moral values
• the principles of conduct governing an
individual or a group
• a guiding philosophy
• a consciousness of moral importance
(Miriam Webster Dictionary)
Which ethics?
Intrinsic and extrinsic ethics? (Bloom,2013)
Micro-ethics (how should I be with my client inthis-moment?) and normative ethics (the
“pointy-end”-don’t sleep with your client!).
Minimalist vs Aspirational? (Carroll and
Shaw,2013, Corey, 2003)
Aspirational ethics (Corey and
Corey,2003)/Journey ethics (Lee,
2004), /Ethical maturity (Carrol and
Shaw, 2013)
Complementary concept from Gestalt
Attitude
Active-looks for emergent ethical situations in
day-to-day practice and living. Tracks ongoing
process.
Contact process tracks the emergent relationship
between organism and environment at the contact
boundary
Comprehensive, holistic and embraces
Field Theory studies and appreciates events as a
complexity- There are often multiple ways of
function of the relationship between organism and
looking at the situation-multiple perspectives
environment (Yontef, 2008).
influenced by a multiplicity of contextual factors.
Ethics is situated in and co-constructed by the
relationship.
Motivated by the trust- my decision making and Dialogue acknowledges the quality of the
actions are based on my appreciation of and
relationship between therapist and client
fidelity to the relationship (Carrol and
Shaw,2013).
Relational- I am always acting to protect/faithful Dialogue
to relationships (Carrol and Shaw, 2013).
Relational approach focuses on the inextricable
relationship between ‘being’ and ‘being with’
(Stawman, 2010)
Internal locus of control- I am responsible for my Awareness-choice-responsibility.
practice ethics.
Aspirational ethics (Corey and
Corey,2003)/Journey ethics (Lee, 2004),
/Ethical maturity (Carrol and Shaw, 2013)
Complementary concept from Gestalt
attitude.
Dialectical- constantly comparing the
general with the particular- engages with
discrepancies (Gabriel and Casemore, 2009
,p.18). Experience over “Truth”.
Phenomenological approach accepts that “reality
and perception are..a relationship be-tween the
perceiver and the perceived” (Yontef, 2010, p.39)
“How ought we be toward one another?...The
universal asking of such questions is the watermark of
situated ethics upon human beings. Being open to
ethics is at the heart of our humanness and therefore
is implicit in the practice of psychotherapy” (Bloom,
2013,p.132)
Relational ethic
“a co-constructed ethical and
moral
encounter, with associated relational
experiences and processes, that both
influences and in turn is influenced by
the complex multidimensional context in
which the relationship occurs. The term
relational ethic represents the complex
medium through which decisions and
interactions associated with the process
and progress of a relationship are
mindfully and ethically engaged with”
(Gabriel and Casemore, 2009).
The dimensions of the relational ethic
(Gabriel, 2009)
Situated ethics-a way of looking
(Bloom, 2013)
“whatever is to be encountered is encountered in a
situation. Whatever is to be done is done out of a
situation with regard to further situations….The
situation is an experiential existential subset of the
field” (Bloom,2013,134).
Not an ethics of content- “right” or “wrong”- moral,
personal or societal values. Rather , it is our
orientation towards an ethics of content.
Situated ethics give us “ethical sight” which in turn,
orients us to ethical choice.
“The graceful rhythm of the patient and
therapist’s co-experiencing each other at the
contact-boundary is shaped by something more
basic. It is shaped by the human quality to see
one another “ethically”-that is, as humans who
recognize one another as fellow humans and
look to one another with a certain expectation,
with a certain ethical sensitivity…This is basic to
the structure of being human” (Bloom, 2013,
p.132)
Ethics of care-a way of being with
“So here we are, by virtue
of being human, ethically
situated” (Jacobs, 2011;
94)
Retrieved from:https://au.pinterest.com/pin/197032552427108364/
Ethic of awareness (Knijff, 2012)
Roles are sets of formally defined, recognizable
behaviors, legitimized by authority.
Functions are “a whole of interdepended and
‘synchronized behaviour, which includes all
participants in a certain field” (p.165).
The therapist is not a strict role but a fluid
function-in-a-field. (Process-orientated).
“Having dialogue on therapy we are involved
in is the most appropriate way to keep
everyone’s awareness awake: awareness about
one’s own and awareness about the other’s
specific function in this relationship” (Knijff,
2012, p.167).
Ethic of co-creation
“The more I acknowledge my
co-agency of the given
situation, the more influence I
gain on it…And what is more, if
you see yourself as coresponsible for what happened
to you, you strengthen your
persuasion that events of this
kind can be avoided in the
future” (Staemmler, 2009;
pp158-159)
Shame
Lee (2004) and Lompa (2013) have both
suggested that shame experienced in the
relational field of therapy could be an indicator
of unethical practice (Lompa, 2013) or
disconnection (Lee,2004).
Lee describes shame as a “self/other mapping
tool”, pointing to a lack of support and
disconnection that can be used by the therapist
as a way of attending to the relational field.
Boundary Riders and Process
Sentinels
The boundary rider “monitors and maintains the limit
..and extent of a given relationship” (Gabriel, 2005).
Functions include:
• Tracking relational extents and limits
• Identifying and responding swiftly to relational
ruptures
• Facilitating relational boundaries with courage and
tenacity
• Adapting to the sometimes difficult relational terrain
• Collaborating with client and others to hold and
facilitate the work and relationship
• sustaining self and supporting others in chaotic and
conflicted situations (Gabriel, 2009)
The process sentinel is the “guardian of the
relationship and relational processes. They work
in collaboration with relational partners to
maintain and develop the relational content,
process and progress” (Gabriel, 2009, p.20).
Functions include:
• Develops comprehensive relational skills and
capacity
• Can work with complex ethical issues
• Maintains a capacity for reasoned and ethical
responding in chaotic and conflicted relational
situations
• Has a capacity for an “eagle eye” perspective
on relational processes as well as the ability to
focus on the minutiae of situations
• Embodies and epitomises reflexive relating
(Gabriel, 2009).
Developing an ‘Internal Chorus’
(Orange, 2016)
Who en-courages you?
Image retrieved from: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/we-arethe-world-a-minute-by-minute-breakdown-30th-anniversary-20150306
Ethi-Call: The Ethics Centre
Where does a Code of Ethics fit in all
this?
For too long, codes and frameworks have been used
as the sole criteria for competency in ethical decision
making…while awareness of ethical standards and
codes are crucial to ethical competence, such
documents do not take the place of an active,
deliberate and creative approach to fulfilling our
ethical responsibility.
(Carroll and Shaw, 2013).
“Accountability
becomes a form of
relational
responsiveness,
something we would
want to achieve
because we are in
relationship and it is
worth ‘getting it
right’” (Carroll and
Shaw, 2013, p.109).
References
Bloom, D. (2013). Situated Ethics and the Ethical world of Gestalt Therapy (131146), in G.Francessetti, M.Gecele and J. Roubal (Eds) Gestalt Therapy in clinical
practice: frompsychopathology to the aesthetics of contact. Milano: Franco
Angeli.
Carrol, M.and Shaw, E. (2013). Ethical maturity in the helping professions:
making difficult life and work decisions. London: Jessica Kingsley
Corey, G. and Corey, M.S (2003). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. (6th
Ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gabriel, L. and Casemore, R. (2009). Introduction. In L.Gabriel and R.Casemore
(Eds.) Relational ethics in practice: narratives from counselling and
psychotherapy (pp1-21). Oxford,UK: Taylor and Francis.
Knipf, E. (2012). Awareness instead of rules: Gestalt ethics (164-173), in T. Bar
Yoseph Levine (Ed). Gestalt therapy: Advances in theory and practice,. Hove,
England: Routledge.
Jacobs,L. (2011). Ethical inspiration and complex experiencing (93-99), in
D.Bloom and P.Brownell (Eds.). Creativity and change: Gestalt Therapy now.
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars.
Lee, R. (2004)The values of connections: a relational approach to ethics.
Cambridge, MA: Gestalt Press.
Orange, D.M. (2016). Nourishing the inner life of clicians and
humanitarians:the ethical turn in psychoanalysis. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
N.a. Miriam Webster Dictionary Retrieved from: http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary
Staemmler, F. (2009). Aggression, time and understanding: contributions to
the evolution of Gestalt therapy. New York: Routledge.
Yontef, G. (2010). “The relational attitude in Gestalt Therapy and practice”
(37-59). In L. Jacobs and R.Hycner (Eds.) Relational approaches in Gestalt
Therapy. Santa Cruz,CA:Gestalt Press
Unless otherwise indicated, images retrieved from: www.pinterest.com.au