Toward the Event

“But it is above all in order to interrogate once more this manner of naming life, more precisely, living: Not life, the being or essence or substance of something like LIFE, but living, the presently living, not the substance called life that remains alive, but an attribute called “living” that qualifies or determines the present, the now, a now that would be essentially living, presently living, maintaining living.”

Jacques Derrida (2005), p. 110.

“Experiment, never interpret...”

Deleuze and Parnet (1987), p. 28

Table of Contents | Jump Ahead

The question

The Democratics of Choice

Democratic practice amidst spheres of control

Conclusion

About the author

References

---

The question

The question at hand is one of engaging in therapeutic practice with those who are mandated to receive ‘therapeutic treatment’. More specifically, the question is put to me, as a therapist—How do I work with those who are required to work with me? Before that question, a more basic question—Should I work with people who are mandated to receive therapeutic services? And, if I should, how am I to engage in such a work?

In one way the question seems most appropriate, for most of my work is, and has been, with individuals, families and organisations where there are often many levels of requirement, necessity and obligation. The criminal justice system with its numerous expectations on individuals and families; the child-welfare system, with its varied legalities and requirements, its obligations on families and on professionals; or the organisation world, where a workforce may be required to experience training or consulting which I am providing—all this introduces mandates, requirements, obligations, etc. It also introduces thorny dilemmas concerned with choice and freedom.

While I certainly see how this question bears relevance to my work, I find that this question does not urgently press upon me, it is not a question that I often find myself occupied with. The question does not grasp me in a signifcant way. Why? Perhaps for a number of reasons. However, it is more another question that intrigues me, that is the question of why the original question does not grasp me, why it might leave me disinterested?

In response to this last question I present a few thoughts.

The Democratics of Choice

Our work in the therapeutic professions is informed by a certain democratic philosophy, a philosophy where choice and freedom come to play. Is it not our wish that those clients who spend their time with us will do so because they are exercising their democratic rights and they are choosing to spend their time with us, they see it as beneficial and therefore make a decision to engage with us?

A world with choice and decisions, a world which calls for choice is a world worth cherishing. However, the language of choice quickly looses its simplicity and decisiveness. When a client ‘chooses’ to see me, is her experience of making this decision an experience of democratic freedom? Perhaps, but, it also might be a decision made upon facing dead-ends, a decision made because no other viable options are available to her. She might be experiencing this decision as if there were no other choice; perhaps a decision of necessity, even of obligation.

And, what about our own sense of obligation and choice? We look at our clients from the perspective of choice and freedom, but what of our own choices and freedoms within the work we are engaged in? What about our own professional obligations and expectations? How much of our work can be attributed to a purity of democratic motive?

The complicating dilemmas of choice invite a re-examination of the language of power.

The French philosopher, Gilles Deleuze (1986), discusses Michelle Foucault’s (1980) thoughts on power. Deleuze, who was a good friend of Foucault, talked about Foucault in his later years seeing Western cultures as moving away from strict authorities, locations wherein power is exercised, to the much more subtle influences of what Foucault called control. Foucault compared the power of law, the power of rule and enforcement with modern forms of control. To illustrate this concept of control, Deleuze gave the example of driving on a highway; we may experience the freedom of the road, the freedom of travel, however, the road itself, by its very structure, limits the driver in significant ways. One is limited, while driving on the highway, to the road itself, and to the system of roads which are available for the car to travel upon. It is not true that one can travel anywhere. This is what Foucualt was interested in, according to Deleuze modern forms of control, where the sense of power-over becomes almost absent, yet the controls upon a person are significant, a world where the force of power seems diminished yet people and things are carefully managed all the same.

The democratic ideal takes upon renewed relevance in light of Deleuze and Foucault’s observations on power and control. How do we exercise our democratic rights within contexts where controls are constantly upon us, controls which are far beyond our awareness? And, in the light of the question informing this document, how do we, as both professionals and clients, exercise our democratic freedoms, our choices, in light of the numerous controls that are upon ‘therapeutic’ relationships?

I respond to this question. However, the response will take us far beyond the typical concerns of mandate, obligation and choice. The response comes in two parts.

Democratic practice amidst spheres of control

“Encounter... the encounter as random occurrence, as chance, as luck or coincidence, as the conjuncture that comes to seal one or more than one event once, at a particular hour, on a particular day, in a particular month, year and region; and when the encounter with the other, the ineluctable singularity from which and destined to which a poem speaks.”

Jacques Derrida (2005), p. 9.

1-The Event

The first response is one of leaving the world of ideals altogether, leaving the realm of generalisation, toward a world occupied with the event, and by the event, I mean the specific event, the specifics of a singular event which we find ourselves engaged with. The question ceases to be one of a philosophy of choice, or a philosophy of obligation. It ceases to be a question which determines underlying principles which are to inform future situations. Instead, it becomes a question of the event, of only this particular event which confronts us. If there are questions of freedom, of obligation, of choice, these are questions which emerge from within the unique moment of this event, and only from within the unique event. Typically, from within the event, new questions and interests capture us. The language which forms in response to a specific event will in all likelihood be something other than a language of choice, freedom, or of power and control—though it could conceivably include such language. In response to the event, and in response to the complexities of relationship which are always involved in the event, no prediction or anticipation is realistic, rather surprise appears, along with a newness of language and a renewing of vision, of ways of seeing the world.

I believe that the question of the event is at the heart of the work of Susan Swim (Swim, 2003, 2006; Swim, George, Wulff, 2001) with her ideas on Process Ethics. She suggests that our ethical questions and their answers come from within the process itself, that is, from within the movements of the singular event, and within the specific network of relationships involved with the event. In the context of her writings, she was referring to the movements of the specific therapeutic or supervisory events we find ourselves immersed within. Swim’s work suggests that the question of working with mandated clients becomes instead the question of working with the mandated client. It becomes specific to the particular world which is created through the client/therapist relationship, including all the other relationships connected to the client/ therapist relationship.

Janice DeFehr (2007), in a paper presented at the International Summer Institute in Playa Del Carmen, Mexico, talks of research within the context of what I am referring to as the event. She suggests that we are typically taught in research to step out of the interactive event, to close it, and then function as analysts and interpreters of the event, looking for categories, patterns and repetitions, themes and sub-themes. In this process, people’s words are reassigned to general and static categories, separated from the conversational contexts that give them their particular character, beauty, fluidity and agency. DeFehr, with others, proposes that understanding emerges within the living, responsive movements of the interactive event.

Currently engaged in a research project through the Taos/Tilburg Phd program, she is exploring reciprocity and responsivity in therapy practice, more specifically, how collaborative therapists describe their work as generative and transforming for themselves. What particularly interests me is her willingness to allow the research method to emerge responsively from within the conversational event—the heart of the shared inquiry. This process is not and cannot be prefigured in advance. Similarly, the project ‘findings’ are not re-presented in the form of a research product, such as a framework, model or theory, but rather, ‘outcomes’ present unpredictably and abundantly throughout lived processes of conversation and ‘correspondence’ throughout the entire project.

Responsivity to life as it is encountered, in the midst of the event, becomes crucial to her process.

I also see (and this is my own observation of DeFehr’s work) that her research is not so much a discovery process as it is a creative process, a constitutive, collaborative work involving many hands, involving all the participating hands. While many might protest the idea of research being a creative act rather than a revelatory act, I believe that all research is unavoidably about the making or arranging of something—even though it is rarely acknowledged as a creative process.

DeFehr’s processes maintain a democratic, dialogical texture, wherein all participants are able to be genuinely and productively involved in this creative act. The processes DeFehr is engaging with are not new, they are the same processes we all engage with on a daily basis within our conversational worlds, however, her application of these processes into the academic world of research is novel, and, in my eyes, is most welcome.

“One must, on the contrary, speak with, write with. With the world, with a part of the world, with people. Not a talk at all, but a conspiracy...”

Gilles Deleuze (2001), p. 52.

The Empiricist Tradition

“More than anything else, Deleuze the thinker is the thinker of the event and always of this event in particular. From beginning to end, he remained the thinker of the event.”

Jacques Derrida (2001), p. 192.

I revisit Deleuze (1987; 2001) for a moment. Jacques Derrida (2001) described Deleuze as, amongst his generation, the thinker of the event. With that in mind I consider how Deleuze described himself. It must be emphasised that Deleuze never talked of himself as postmodern (many others do place Deleuze within a postmodern frame), rather he described himself as an empiricist, after the order of Hume and Berkely (he also places Nietzsche within this empiricist camp). By an empiricist, Deleuze was suggesting that he was interested in the movements of life as it is lived, as it is experienced, in terms approaching that particular experience of life. By contrast, Deleuze held little interest in hierarchical impositions, philosophical or therapeutic impositions which suggest how life should be lived, or how relations should be engaged. His empiricism was one of opening space for the movements of life and allowing those movements to inform language, and to inform further ways of life. He aimed toward a language which returns, as much as is possible, to affirm these movements of life. This suggests of course, that the empiricist move is one which is constantly on the move, it can never be contained, must always be revised, will always be in responsive movement to the movements of that which seems to be alive. Therefore, Derrida is able to suggest that Deleuze was interested in the event, in that moment where life is in movement, where we are participating with those sundry movements of life.

With an interest in the event, the question which emerges is not one of how to engage in therapeutic interaction with mandated clients, that is, a question which can impose certain authoritative, presumptive and predictive frames upon the therapeutic relationship. Rather, our question becomes localised, centered upon the specifics of the event and the relationships connected to the event. We encounter the event, we encounter bodies within and around the event, and we do not, cannot know what words and ideas will appear, or what new worlds we will find ourselves walking through.

There is here a reminiscence of Nelson Goodman’s (1984) world-making. Each event is, therefore, a creative enterprise, producing worlds in which we are able to make movement, transverse upon a geography, get lost within foliage and landscape, engage with other bodies and other types of bodies.

“The author creates a world, but there is no world which awaits us to be created” Gilles Deleuze (2001), p. 52.

2-The Gift

At this point I focus the language, talk of something more specific. I introduce the idea of the gift-exchange, and explore its relevance to our work with so-called mandated clients.

Amidst most, if not all cultures, there emerges a language of gift, a way of talking which is able to see the particulars of life as gifts given, whether from a God or gods, from the land or the sky, from ancestors, or friends, family, community, or from endless other locations.

The gift emerges and re-emerges, in the particulars of life, and also in the worlds of thought. The gift has been a topic of considerable interest to Jacques Derrida (1992; 1997), suggesting that the gift is one of those events in life that converges on the impossible possibility, or the possible impossibility. The gift is something that can never be truly experienced, never fully grasped, yet, at the same time, it is always experienced, it is inescapably experienced, and it is necessary for life. Other writers have also examined the implications of the gift, including Steven David Ross (1996) who sees it connected to an experience of a world of abundance; Helene Cixous (Cixous & Clemment, 1996; Cixous, 2004) who contrasted the realm of the gift with the realm of the proper (reminiscent of a New Testament distinction between charis—grace/gift—and law). Nicholas Fox (1994) implicates the gift into the world of work, into a world where work is response; and the Theologian, Matthew Fox (1981; 1991) who also links the gift into work, into work which is responsive and compassionate, and into a work which is far removed from the Abrahamic traditions of sin/redemption.

I wish to propose that we think of our own work, our ‘therapeutic’ work as a work of gift-exchange. This implies, first of all, that our work is about responsivity, and specifically a responsivity to the gifts in circulation, the gifts presented within the context of a particular event. I suggest that those persons we work with carry with them and around them a wide assortment of gifts, of goods, of thoughts, of histories, of relationships, etc. These gifts must be responded to within our work. The idea of the gift-exchange within our work does not imply that we see our own work as a gift to our clients and their communities. No, that is a work more akin to charity, and anybody who has ever been a recipient of charity knows how charity feels. Charity is far removed from the gift-exchange. The gift-exchange is always about responding, responding to gifts already given. It is never about what we give. It is always about particular responsivity to the particular gifts given. The very motion/circulation of the gift exchange emerges, in part, from its resistance to any form of origination—there is a persistent tendency in the gift-exchange to move all talk of a gift’s origin on to other sources, which in turn, do the same (The following message circulates along with the gift—“No, no, no.. it is not about my gift, it is about the other’s gift”). Also, the gift-exchange, within therapeutic contexts, is not simply about our responsivity as professionals, rather it is a work which is concerned with the recognition and further awakening of a larger communal responsivity.

Conclusion

How might our work be seen differently if we embraced the concept of gift-exchange and its implications upon the work we do? How might the daily movements of our work change? How might our interactions, our movements with those we call clients be experienced anew in light of the gift- exchange? And, how might our work with clients who are ‘mandated’ look different in light of the gift-exchange?

Perhaps, just perhaps, we might see that even the ‘mandated’ client cannot but place gifts into circulation within the client/therapist relationship. Perhaps the idea of ‘mandate’ becomes close to extraneous when within a world where this person, this apparent object of our service, is discovered to be bearing gifts, gifts which we must, with something close to humility, receive. And certainly the client, even the mandated client, will be carrying gifts into his own life and world, his own communal rhizome—always within a singular event. Perhaps our work will itself find renewal and refreshment as it is seen in light of the gift. Perhaps the realm of deficit might dissipate, might appear more and more irrelevant in favour of worlds where gifts circulate, and where, in their reception, more and more gifts emerge.

“There are only intermezzos, intermezzi, as sources of creation. This is what conversation is, and not the talk or the performed debate of specialists amongst themselves... Everything that is alive happens elsewhere is produced elsewhere.”

Deleuze and Parnet (1987), p. 28

About the author

Christopher Kinman was born in Ibadon, Nigeria and currently resides near the city of Vancouver, where he practices as a family therapist and consultant in the human-services division. He has been awarded two graduate degrees: Master of Divinity and Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

References

Cixous, H. & C. Clemment (1996). The Newly Born Woman: Theory and History of Literature, Volume 24. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cixous, H. (2004). Portrait of Jacques Derrida as a Young Jewish Saint. New York: Columbia University Press.

DeFehr, Janice. (2007) Understanding Dialogue Dialogically. Unpublished: Presented at the International Summer Institute, Playa

Del Carmen, Mexico. Deleuze, G. (1986). Foucault. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Deleuze, G. (2001). Pure Immanence: Essays on A Life. New York: Zone Books.

Deleuze, G. & C. Parnet (1987). Dialouges. New York: Columbia University Press.

Derrida, J. (1992). Given Time: 1, Counterfeit Money. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, J. (1995). The Gift of Death. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, J. (2001). The Work of Mourning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Derrida, J. (2005). Sovereignties in Question: The Poetics of Paul Celan. New York: Versa.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings, 1972 – 1977. New York: Pantheon.

Fox, M. (Ed.) (1981). Western Spirituality: Historical Roots, Ecumenical Routes. Santa Fe: Bear Publications.

Fox, M. (Ed.) (1991). Creation Spirituality: Liberating Gifts for the People of the Earth. San Francisco: Harper.

Fox, N. (1994). Postmodernism, Sociology and Health. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Goodman, N. (1984). Of Mind and Other Matters. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Ross: S. D. (1996). The Gift of Beauty: The Good as Art. New York: State University of New York.

Swim, S. (2003). Process Ethics: Collaborative Partnerships Within Therapeutic Conversational Communities. Ann Arbor: Pro-Quest.

Swim, S. (2006). Relational Supervision: Process EthicsGuiding Learning Communities. In Press.

Swim, S., St. George, S., & Wulff, D. (2001). Process Ethics: A Collaborative partnership. The Journal of Systemic Therapies, 20 (4), 14-24.