Interpretations of Training Experiences
5.2 Separation: Theory and Text
communicative separation that is taught within the profession's text production processes; particularly those of report writing on clients, and the expansion of professional knowledge through research.
plane of the observing gaze still remains: That of the subject/object separation that exists between the observer and the image itself. To pursue the image of portraiture:
integration of theory with practice would represent nothing more than a removal of the portrait frames, and of the canvases being placed side by side.
The reason is because the division of disease from the world and people is attended by a further separation, one located in the type of discourse used to describe it.
Superimposed upon the rational, objective, written word - the valued communication of the university setting - is a 'meta-language' used specifically to describe and document the presence of disease. This 'meta-Ianguage' is a phenomena of all 'helping' professions - from medicine to social work. Edelman (1984; p45) suggests that these professions develop it as a result of their primary concern with defining other people's status - in SHT's case, a person being a 'diseased' communicator. In other words, and laid upon rational empiricism, it is a language developed to 'justify restrictions of their [client/patient] physical movements and of their moral and intellectual influence' . In this analysis, Nolwazi's emphasis on writing as an alienating experience (paragraphs
12-13 in 'Learning Alone') indicates more than the difficulty of writing in a second language, but expresses rather the difficulty of learning this 'meta-language.' A language, moreover, and as she points out, without a clear rule book, and one that also requires translation into her second language of English.
There are two central loci of professional activity where proficiency in 'meta-language' is needed. Firstly, and through the function of report writing on clients, the profession needs it to describe its relationship to the society it serves and to other professionals.
Secondly, and through the research it produces, the profession uses it to describe its relationship to academia and to the international profession. It is for these reasons that in training, the student's ability to communicate in the profession-specific 'meta- language' is specifically evaluated. Because of Nolwazi's particular emphasis upon these contexts,· the following sub-sections discuss reports written on and about clients seen in practice and, secondly, the mandatory research component of student training.
5.2.1 The Discourse of Report writing
Nolwazi has never submitted one report without having to re-write it, sometimes up to five times. The problem is that, "I was writing in a roundabout way. 1 wasn't straight to the point. 1 was writing in long sentences and that's how 1 talk....Well, really, they wanted me to write it in a scientific way. 1 don't know WHY it should be scientific if I'm just explaining the problem, or explaining the results - but it had to be scientific. And 1 still don't understand what they really wanted me to write..•..My language had to kind of change...And it has never changed. I'm still writing like this. It's hard to, to actually write in their style" (Interview Transcript Two, p28).
The action of writing a report is a commentary in hindsight. This commentary is not, however, upon what has actually been said, but upon the therapist's interpretation of what has been said, mediated by objective and rational language. It represents, therefore, a life-history, yet without the collaboration - and most frequently the knowledge - of the participant.
With the emotional and feeling 'life' of the person carefully re-worked so as to reflect a one-dimensional 'scientific' plane, report-writing at one and the same time serves to distance the therapist from personal involvement in the shaping of the original dialogue, while facilitating the presentation of a person's life as an objective (diagnostic) 'truth'.
The life of the client is, therefore, re-constituted within the words of the professional and, by discursive sleight of hand, presented without the therapist taking responsibility for this re-constitution. The separation of client and therapist is a creation of 'subject' and 'object' relationships; relationships of significantly unequal power - and of significant distance.
Foucault (1973), in tracing the ontological roots of professional commentary upon diseased individuals, links its secrecy and specialised nature to the desire of a privileged group to maintain their knowledge amongst themselves. Thus the production of reports presumes competence in the 'meta-Ianguage' of subordinate and superior relations of power - a position clearly perceived by Nolwazi as non-caring.
This point is extended to the second context of professional text production, that of the creation of professional knowledge through research.
5.2.2 The Discourse of Research
A mandatory requirement for SHT graduation IS the production of an honours equivalent, mini-research dissertation. Itis examined as a separate course of study, and is most usually undertaken in the final year of study. Nolwazi submitted her research project in 1999, and instead of failing outright, she was given a mark that allowed her to re-submit the report in early January 2000. Transcript Excerpt 5 describes the multiple levels of separation she experienced over this project, an attitude survey of BAFL speaking clients receiving therapy for dysfluent speech patterns (Interview Four, pplO-
11):
Ruth: 'Okay, if it had been you, would you have done it the way you've ended up doing the research?
Nolwazi: No.
Ruth:How would you have done it? ..
Nolwazi: Oh! (laugh) I would have gone and spoken to these people and asked them questions as to how they felt about therapy, to find out from them how they felt about therapy, and how they, how they were benefiting....
Ruth:And how did you end up doing it?
Nolwazi: Well, I ended up having to go and look for literature, a lot of literature that dealt with this research, because I could not do it - you know, it wouldn't be my thing - you know, it had to come from somewhere. I could not use my general knowledge (laugh) I had to go and find someone else's knowledge and then use it. Because you can't say anything unless you can say 'Orlando Taylor, 1999' or something like that .
Ruth:And then how did you actually do it? . Nolwazi: I sent them questionnaires.
(...•....)
Ruth: ....Was that when you phoned me and asked how the hell you analyse a Lickert scale?
Nolwazi: Yes.
Ruth: And I said, 'Go to the book that told you to do a Lickert scale in the first place?'
(Both laugh) Nolwazi: Yes.
Ruth: Why did you - did you understand why you had to do it?
Nolwazi: NO! (laugh) ...You know, I don't know. I still feel that I didn't get any information. I didn't get enough information, even though I did it.
Because the questions were too structured, they were looking for certain information. You know, they were not looking for what the client was feeling.
Ruth:But you keep using 'They' ... to explain this research,.
Nolwaz;: Well, I didn't feel part of it. Itdidn't feel like MY thing. You know when you do something because you can't do what you want to do? You know, you're not so interested in it. You're just doing· it because somebody wants you, and the person who wants you to do it is the person who's going to mark you; so why not do what she wants, then? Then it's over and done with.'
To summarise the issues she raises here: firstly, that the separation of the researcher from the subjects of the research occurred through the written word being granted primacy over dialogue. Secondly, that the written word was legitimated both in terms of methodology (questionnaire), and in terms of knowledge (literature survey). In this process, 'subject' feeling and emotion was re-constituted by the therapist-researcher and largely removed. And finally, that the consequence of engaging in research was Nolwazi experiencing herself as separate from it.
From this excerpt, it is also clear that Nolwazi remains unconvinced that the objective and rational power of the written word is superior to that of the spoken word, especially when attempting to access people's feelings and attitudes. She continues to believe in the inter-subjective power of dialogue as the primary vehicle for both the creation of knowledge and the expression of care as a basis from which to create this knowledge.
Yet she also clearly expresses her position of dislocated powerlessness as a result of the non-negotiable communicative context underscoring the research process, understanding her response to it as a necessity to obey. This last point finds a resonance with Figure 7 (4.1.3), '!Dd her childhood learning from non-caring experiences.
To higWight the effects of separation as a core function of professional research production, it is perhaps appropriate to contrast the discussion thus far with the legitimate 'meta-Ianguage' of professional knowledge creation. Included as Appendix 6 is the abstract of a research paper based upon a doctoral dissertation being produced by a Departmental teacher-professional.26
The interest of this particular example lies not only m the clear demonstration of analytical-empiricism in its design with regard to 'subjects', 'test instruments', 'statistical analysis' 'reliability control' and aims at 'standardisation', but also in its
26Appendix 6: 'Issues and Outcomes in the development of a "culture-fair" test of verbal reasoning for rural Zulu-speaking children' (Solarsh, 1999).
subject matter. The aim of the study is to access how children think. More particularly, how a particular group of rural, isiZulu-speaking children think in one 'mode' of thought, that of verbal reasoning; and to thereafter reveal 'significant differences' in thinking between rural isiZulu speaking children and other groups of children.
It is not within the scope of this study to offer detailed critique of the fundamental 'separation' that will emerge from this project, or to link the 'significant differences' that will be revealed to the debates between WaIter Lippmann and Lewis Terman in 1923, and the subsequent much publicised work of Arthur Jansen (Block & Dworkin, 1977). It is rather necessary to point out that research concentrating upon individual differences of reasoning as part of 'intelligence'· are part of larger interests in control, particularly those of 'explaining' why Black children fail at school (Lawler, 1978).
What, however, is important in terms of this discussion is that the discrete parceling of 'verbal reasoning' as an, ability and skill independent of the entire sum of a child's experience, constitutes a separation of 'thinking' from the child as a cultural whole.
This point is not only raised in relation to the methodology of this study in 2.3.2, but is .highlighted by Nolwazi in paragraphs 15 and 16 of 'The Monster'. Her claim that the profession will be unable to learn about Black South Africa through its current method of discrete and separated study of 'culture' appears supported when critically considered in light of Solarsh's(l999) research paper and the study upon which it is based.
In concluding this part of the discussion regarding the promotion of 'separation' through several key text production processes of the profession, it is useful to re-cap on Fromm's (1956) discussion of the aims of the therapeutic encounter. As first mentioned in Chapter 2.2.2.1, its purpose is to demonstrate care, responsibility, respect and knowledge. In the first instance, these qualities are expressed and understood by attentive listening, reflection and speaking. To contrast. this with the image of the portrait gallery, and the 'meta-Ianguage' sustaining the uni-dimensional subject/object separation of portrait and observer, it would appear something akin to investing the picture itself with the right to speak - and to be heard. Another way of putting this is that instead of the dialogue occurring about the pictures, and being established between visitors to the gallery (insider-professionals, or trans-professional groupings of a referral
or research audience), the primary and essential dialogue IS between image and observer.
A speaking portrait would therefore no longer be a passive representative of disease, or an uninformed subject upon the which research or diagnosis is performed, but an active participant and collaborator in co-authoring the nature of the problem itself. By establishing the trusting and collaborative relationship I described in Figure 4: The Narrative Relationships (3.3.3), the texts of reports, research questions and methodology could be co-constructed. In this way people could claim their right to challenge and reject objectivising 'meta-Ianguage' and specialist terms that dis- empower access to, and creation of, knowledge about themselves as unitary actors in the world. The emphasis would shift, therefore, from that of creating 'differences' between people, to that of establishing collusion between them through negotiated dialogue. In many ways, by allowing the 'subjects' of reports and research to speak and be heard, it invokes the idea of the images in the portraits stepping out from the canvases.
Having said this, however, the admittance of the 'subject' as
a
person to be talked with, as opposed to talked about, presumes a radical change to the current model of professional development. As a first step, it would require deep reflection as regards the communicative heart of the therapeutic encounter and its comparison to the communicative aims of the 'meta-Ianguage' perpetuated through vehicles such as report-writing and research. Issues of power, participation and responsibility would need to be examined in relation to whose interests are being served in preserving the current separation. As a central part of this exploration, the aims of the empirical- analytical model of knowledge creation and construction would need careful re- evaluation, and a critical approach adopted to texts promoting reductionism, empmClsm, statistical analysis and rationality because of their separating, differentiating, and normalising aims. Particularly, these aims would need to be re- searched in terms of their purpose in establishing differences between people on the grounds of pathology and/or culture.Re-examination of the aims and issues concerning text, however, form only one part of the complex influence of the current model of professional development in promoting separation of people from each other. A key contributor is the subject/object
relationship learnt by the student in the therapy practicals. The following section expands upon thist~eme.