I first began to think about design in family support work when Bedford Row Family Project started up. I was not directly involved in the early days (1999) but I was visiting Limerick Prison as part of other work that I was doing and I met the early staff (of Bedford Row) in the waiting area – the Hospitality Centre – where they offered refreshments and a listening ear to family members visiting their loved ones in prison.
I thought it was a beautifully simple idea. It was a bit like street-work – meeting people where they are at, under their conditions. There was undoubtedly a lot of pain and distress, often hidden, but there was not a lot of doom and gloom. In fact people seemed to have a bit of fun together and enjoy themselves.
The one thing that struck me about the Hospitality Centre in those early days is that people were at their ease there. The relationships built were, on the surface, quite casual, but at another level, very deep. I believe that this depth came from the trust created by the environment – i.e. the naturalness of the workers and the cup of tea.
So I began to make some sort of correlation between the good enough parent and the good enough family support project and thoughts began to form in my head that the reason why the good enough parent is successful (if you don’t mind me using that word) is that s/he does not try to be perfect.
Yet almost all agencies with their protocols, policies, procedures, standing orders, rules and regulations, etc. do! In other words, they try to eliminate all the chaotic elements that might get in the way of good work.
Now this is a perfectly logical course of action, and it is hard to argue against it. Yet one of the hallmarks of the good enough parent is that s/he is forgiving of mistakes, manages chaotic unexpected events, allows different personalities and, above all, tolerates members’ illogical, uncensored views and off-the-wall expressions on their journey of growth.
In other words – accepts some dysfunction rather than be frightened by it, trying to eliminate it fully.
Of course there are rules in families, many unspoken, there are rituals and cultures that are peculiar to that family, and often the rules are challenged, broken, and then adjusted to fit a new situation. (These are manifestation of what I will call root foundations of growth that will be described in Section Three in the Chapter on Universal Theory of Change). All growth has a certain amount of randomness and chaos inherent in it but in a good enough context growth moves steadily in a positive direction within that randomness.
In a good enough family kindness of members and compassion for the wrongdoer, inclusion of the one that is different and doesn’t fit in, (done within reasonably healthy but not rigid boundaries), are all present.
The hoped for outcomes for this good enough family are children growing to maturity with good enough physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health.
The family is, truly, creativity in action. This is not surprising because parenting itself is full of creativity.
When we face problems that seem beyond us, we create, and we can come across such problems when parenting! And I believe that if we are not allowed be creative, we get frustrated.
Creativity, (which I consider to be of such importance that I devote a full Chapter to it) is about doing something that is unexpected and because it is unexpected it usually involves trial and error, in other words the inclusion of chaos, and possibility/probability rather than certainty.
When parents are creative, children will naturally learn creativity!
In fact, creativity is probably the most important element that is modelled in parenting. If it is not, then the family may not be good enough and problems are seen as things that cannot be surmounted, rather than opportunities for growth and development of the individual within the family and indeed the family itself.
Another element of good design in the family is compassion. I was at a conference many years ago and someone made a lengthy speech on compassion as if it was a commodity that could be taught. And I’m not saying it can’t be taught. But I believe that it is taught by modelling, not by reducing it to bite-size sections so we can learn it and then do an exam and pass it and get first class honours in compassion!
Like creativity, the teaching, (or imparting) of compassion is hugely augmented by modelling.
Finally, I believe that the fear that can be sometimes present in child protection and caring for vulnerable people in general comes from the fact that we have such poor design. (And the opposite is also true – i.e. fear can cause us to accept, or endure poor design).
On the other hand, good design (incorporating the root foundations referred to above) allows us to see both the nature and the extent of the problem at lot clearer and thereby leads to far better and more cost effective outcomes!
This will be revisited throughout the blog but particularly in the Chapter on Energy.
It is important to recognise this if our goal is for our organisation to be good enough – and have the courage to name it.