3.6 The Family Support Shamrock

The shamrock is our national emblem.  (Well, one of them anyway)!  Another is the harp.  But while the harp has about 40 strings (like a Family Support Agency should) the shamrock has but three leaves.

No matter how hard I tried I couldn’t find 40 elements to guide a worker who is supporting families – but I did find 3.  So I chose the shamrock instead.

I’m only joking – I found the three elements before I thought of the shamrock – which I thought of because I was struck with the similarity between the three family support elements and the way St. Patrick (according to legend) used the shamrock to explain to us how there could be three persons in the one God – that is, the Blessed Trinity.

This will be expanded on considerably in this Chapter which is divided into nine Sub-Chapters.

3.6.1    THE FAMILY SUPPORT SHAMROCK – INTRODUCTION

3.6.2    INCLUSIVENESS – BOUNDEDNESS – CREATIVITY

3.6.3    RESPONSIBILITY (AGAIN)

3.6.4    ARCHETYPAL BACKGROUND

3.6.5    THE THREE ELEMENTS IN ORGANISATIONS

3.6.6    COMPARISON OF THE THREE ELEMENTS IN SYSTEMS

3.6.7    THE THREE ELEMENTS IN THE SELF

3.6.8    THE FAMILY SUPPORT SHAMROCK – THE LISTS

3.6.9    THE FAMILY SUPPORT SHAMROCK – FINAL WORDS

In the Chapter on Systems Theory, we will have gleaned that in a system (such as a family, community, etc.) there is rarely equilibrium, that is, a kind of state where everybody is happy. Or, if there is, it doesn’t last that long.

Rather, life involves constant work, or effort, during which we are using energy to get our needs met. As we are getting our needs met, we encounter others whose needs are getting in the way of our needs.

This, of course, only becomes a problem for us when the energy required to get our needs met exceeds the energy that we have at our disposal.

If it is the other way around, (i.e. the amount of energy we have exceeds the energy we need to get our needs met), our stress is generally healthy, which is life-affirming and satisfying.

In protecting children affected by imprisonment in families that have always struggled to be included, I propose that there is also constant tension – this time within us as practitioners, to determine appropriate and workable strategies to effect positive change.

This tension I will call the Family Support Shamrock – utilising the old Irish symbol which, as I stated above, all Irish people (and many people worldwide) will be familiar.

I have already proposed that our day to day work – if we are taking it seriously at all – involves a kind of personal tension (in a good way).

I now propose that this tension arises from the constant interaction between inclusiveness, creativity, and boundedness, the three elements which I call our Family Support Shamrock.

When I say constant interaction I mean that there is rarely a steady state where all three co-exist in even proportions.  Depending on the situation, the circumstance, the individual or individuals looking for help, our own mood on the day, or even the decisions that colleagues may have made previously, there will be a continual dance between the three elements.

At one point, we may need to be very inclusive, while on another day in a different circumstance, the boundary will be to the fore.  The one constant, ever-present aspect of our work is, however, creativity.

Young men and women who are on the road to addiction and who may have committed crimes to satisfy their instant gratification need might be challenged by the warmth and intimacy of inclusion (so may not be that attracted, initially, to the ease of the relationship), and, of course, most will be very resistant to learning necessary boundaries.

But they will always be drawn to creativity.

For practitioners, it is important to remember that such young people (and some not-so-young) may never have experienced creativity – even from those who are there to help them.  (What they more likely might have experienced is distance, take it or leave it, coercion or in some cases even bullying).

And coercion, bullying and take-it-or-leave-it might not be that challenging for them at all – indeed, that is the kind of world with which they may be familiar!

The Family Support Shamrock offers something different.

To sum up, I believe that we are drawn to creativity because it touches our spirit; we want to be included because of the strength of the root foundation of relationship, and we need boundaries to feel secure and safe.

The remainder of this Chapter will explore the three elements with respect to how they are enhanced and/or inhibited [1] firstly in organisations and then in the self, and are utilised to good effect in our work.

[1] When I say a characteristic, or trait will be enhanced I mean that it will become stronger, or more influential.  When I say inhibited I mean that its influence will be lessened over time.  For example, if I say that creativity is inhibited by, say, a rigid structure, I mean that people who work in the organisation find it hard to be creative, even if they’d like to be, and/or people who ask for help or visit the organisation don’t notice or expect much creativity.

One of our earliest and most fundamental needs is to have a sense of belonging. 

From my experience over many years I believe that much involvement in crime etc. stems from the need to belong being met in a way that is unhealthy, and harmful to people involved in crime themselves, to their families, and, of course, to wider society.

(Just as an aside, I also acknowledge that there may be some people who don’t need to have a sense of belonging in a greater human entity and are at one with their aloneness. See also the Sub-Chapter on attachment styles).

But for those of us who do need to have a sense of belonging, I will state that it is fostered in our good enough family from the day we are born – or actually from when we are conceived – if we think about it deeply!

We know from systems theory that if we want to effect change in people we need to include them, and, more importantly, they need to feel included.

Good work will never be done at a distance, and often, if I don’t feel a sense of inclusion I will drift away – even in cases where the organisation from which I seek help is staffed by highly professional practitioners who are really good at their job.

Now the principal reason why we might end up in prison is that, for one reason or another, we continuously struggle to accept behavioural boundaries that are the norm in mainstream society.  For those of us who don’t go to prison, (or haven’t gone yet) adherence to these behavioural boundaries ensures we are included in whatever we feel will be of benefit to us.  (In particular our family and mainstream school, but also groups such as sports clubs, friends, music, groups, teams of one type or another etc.)

Remember the example of the child where we described the mysterious emotional pain? It is not easy to diagnose, or prescribe a cure for it – it just is.

In the context of this Chapter the most important thing to remember is that, as a child, my experience of this mysterious pain, day in day out, year in year out, may get in the way of accepting the behavioural boundaries mentioned above.

This, of course, is detrimental to my long-term, consistent inclusion in groups that would benefit me and contribute to my normal development.  Avoidance of common-sense boundaries, the accepting of which seems relatively easy for other children, then becomes a pattern that I grow accustomed to, believing that they apply to others but not to me (Perhaps it is the case that continual internal reinforcement of applies-to-others-but-not-to-me messages leads to narcissism – particularly of the grandiose type – in adult life).

But the desire to feel included in something is so strong, particularly in my formative years, that I will endure a lot – sometimes coercion and even bullying that is harsh and demeaning – just to be included.

In trying to be inclusive, that is, ensure that people have a genuine sense of belonging, practitioners may fall into the trap of not wanting to put anyone out, or, to put it another way, wanting to include everyone.

So we need boundaries in order to ensure that our inclusion is healthy and not an anything goes kind of free for all that is fundamentally unhealthy and, overall, damaging to our goals of encouraging responsibility, autonomy and other desirable pro-social traits.

As an aside, the human need for boundaries is evident in many of our preferences in life.  For example, why is a picture more attractive when it is framed?  Why do we need to frame it? Why are games more attractive when they have rules?  Indeed, it would not be a game at all if it didn’t have rules, and would not be fair or equal.  (I will revisit this in the Chapter on Symmetry in Section Four).

On the subject of boundaries, we need:

1. Adequate knowledge, skill and maturity so that we are not torn in different directions, influenced by different opinions, or seduced by different courses of action, no matter how attractive they seem at first;

And

2. A reflective balance to ensure that we do not damage a potential opportunity to build a relationship, (or throw out a good idea) because we are obsessed with the boundary!

So, given all the evidence that is there which posits the importance of healthy boundaries in human growth, how do we address the challenge of including someone [1] who is not accustomed to accepting boundaries, in something that to be of benefit, and which, to be significant, consistent and wholesome must have healthy boundaries?

This is where creativity, the third part of our Family Support Shamrock, comes in.  Problems and dilemmas, even the most difficult ones, always have opportunities hidden inside – just waiting to be discovered [2]. 

[1]. What we are aiming for is to ensure that his decision to be included is made within himself – always more powerful than mandated or coercive inclusion.

[2]. And of course there is no point in discovering the opportunity and being creative in our approach if we do not have the knowledge, tenacity, and energy to act on it – this will be covered in the Chapter on Creativity in the Section on Practical Applications.

Before I discuss responsibility (again) let me introduce the term existential given. (If you are familiar with the term you can skip over the next paragraph).

An existential given is a thing that we can’t change even if we want to. For example, the date of our birth, the fact that we will die, the place we are born, the family we are born into, our place in the family (e.g. eldest, youngest etc.). It is also a given that we get older as time moves forward. (This is related to the root foundations of time and emergence). It is sometimes not easy to decide what is an existential given and what isn’t. When I was young (if I had known what the term existential given meant) I would have thought that being a Catholic was one – so strong was my belief that if I was born into a Catholic family I would always be a Catholic. But it isn’t – because even though it appeared to me that I had no choice in the matter, actually I did.

What about responsibility? Many researchers, philosophers, writers and thinkers maintain that because 1): responsibility is essential to our growth and development, and 2): humans wouldn’t have evolved into what we are nowadays without it; it can be considered to be an existential given. This implies that even if we want to change ourselves into irresponsible humans – it is impossible, because being human means being responsible. (In a previous post on responsibility I referred to the writings of Irwin Yalom who develops this theme very well).

The fact that responsibility is an existential given implies that we will suffer existential guilt if we are not being responsible.  Existential guilt means that we feel guilty if we haven’t been, for example, authentic, or true to ourselves, or if we haven’t reached our full potential, and/or that we have let ourselves down – and if we are irresponsible we let ourselves down.

Now, as an aside, there is a very interesting organisation known as the Human Givens Institute, based in England. The book, entitled Human Givens, is a very thought-provoking and informative read which promotes the idea that we all have, innately, the potential to change our lives for the better.

I think that givens like the book identifies – and, indeed, responsibility – are different kinds of givens than the colour of our eyes, or the year we are born, or our place in our family. When I was thinking of the differences I was thinking that the former are dynamic, or moving givens, and the latter are static givens.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Almost always, if we end up in prison, a root cause (remember we also discussed proximate causes and root causes in a previous Chapter) is that we find it really difficult to manage our emotions and/or we are well practiced at getting others to take responsibility for our emotional state.

Simply put, this means when something goes wrong or we feel angry or afraid or indeed we do something wrong, it is always someone else’s fault. So – in not being responsible – we let ourselves down – which is far more debilitating than letting anyone else down.

Sometimes I wonder if we have a felt-sense of responsibility to make a contribution to family and/or society or is it just to self? In other words, if we perceive ourselves not to be doing so do we suffer from a kind of existential torment?

Perhaps!

We all know how comforting it is to blame someone else and not take responsibility when something goes wrong.

Who put that there??

So, the difficulty in accepting or owning our own emotions isn’t confined to people who go to prison!

But eventually most of us have enough, if not empathy, sufficient instinct for self-preservation to know that continually blaming others won’t get us that far in family life, school, work or, crucially, relationships.

A very important developmental process, (which, in normal development lasts from about 7, which used to be called the age of reason, to, modern studies in neuroscience would say, about 23/24) is the gradual formation of a sense of personal responsibility for our emotions, and therefore for our behaviour and indeed for the consequences of our behaviour.

Now if we consider the good enough, reasonably well-functioning family, what we might call the distribution of emotional responsibility is shared appropriately.  That is, parents take responsibility for their emotions, older children (mostly) for theirs, and little children are being taught by modelling from parents and older siblings to take responsibility for theirs.

However, in families where there is a lot of pain and hurt, for example from violence, physical, sexual or emotional abuse, and/or addiction it is common that some members take on far too much responsibility and let others, who take no responsibility, off the hook.  The responsible member (or members) may get into a pattern of bailing out the person who, they believe, is unable to carry the burden of responsibility. (The historic, intergenerational reasons why a member may take on this kind of caretaker role are well researched and documented – this link to the book ‘Children Under The Influence‘ by Michael Hardiman might be helpful as a start).

The upshot of it is that the person who, every member knows, will not take responsibility, is often the member of the family who ends up an addict, or involved in crime, or going to prison.

Despite being well-meaning, continually bailing someone out is harmful. 

And the taking on of too much of a burden (i.e. the bailing out) will almost always be accompanied by nagging, lecturing, blaming while all the time pursuing the same behaviours. The unspoken deal is, of course, that the caretaker confines his activities to nagging and constant lecturing – but nothing really changes within the family. (I develop this theme further here).

Since a significant amount of children’s learning comes about through modelling, it goes without saying that developing a sense of personal responsibility for one’s emotional state will be an uphill battle for those who are deemed unable by others to carry the burden of responsibility.

If we add trauma that is unresolved to their experiences, we add another layer to the difficulties encountered.  (The intergenerational reasons why one person chooses to carry the burden and is constantly caring for the other – and indeed, in the process, taking away the other’s power – are, of course, connected to the Atlantic Ocean of emotional waves, and are not that easy to do something about).

Once again, there are rarely quick-fixes!

I propose that any support (whether formal programmes or informal support work) offered to families affected by imprisonment with a goal of making life better for their children needs to 1): include as many members of the family as possible that are affected; and also 2): develop an awareness of who shares which emotional burdens.

Now, we will have read in this post that families will have wonderful talents, profound thought, wisdom, coping skills, strengths and survival mechanisms that have served them well throughout their often stressful and – in comparison to the majority of the population – chaotic lives.

So these talents and strengths are there to be tapped into.  I believe that healing will be optimised by:

1. Inviting members to join in decision making, in a very genuine and not tokenistic way.

2. Giving the message that we are willing to journey together in finding a solution.

3. Allowing sufficient time for healing.

4. Recognising the circularity of the healing process, i.e. that it is rarely linear or stepped. Some people call this kind of healing three steps forward and two steps back. (Or visa-versa).

5. Taking a risk.

6. Keeping it relevant ….. and exciting.

And above all

7. Fostering a sense of inclusion at all stages of the process.

To achieve all the above, we need to be creative in how we include people, while at the same time bounded so that everyone will be safe and the root foundations (of which time, linked above, is one) can work at their own pace.

The three elements of our Shamrock, inclusion, boundedness, and creativity, in different forms, are evident in myth and legend.

The story of Cinderella encourages us to consider what it is like to live in a family with, (from Cinderella’s point of view), very little inclusiveness.  Indeed, at the end, we see the result for the ugly sisters of them behaving in an excluding manner.  (The fact that the sisters are ugly while Cinderella is beautiful is also, of course, interesting).

The story of Red Riding Hood was probably intended to ensure that children had a boundary, feared the woods (which would have been terrifying places at the time) and did not trust strangers too easily.

And fairy stories that we all read as children are full of creativity that make all sorts of wonderful things happen by magic.

There are other archetypal references also.

Ancient alchemists believed that the World consisted of three basic elements, Earth, Water and Fire.  Earth can be considered to be the ground or ultimate boundary.  Water is seen as the inclusive factor, that is, things may dissolve in it, and Fire is the creative entity, i.e. it has energy, makes things happen, or changes things.

For those of us brought up in the Christian tradition, there is a very powerful archetype in the Blessed Trinity.  God the Father is the ultimate boundary – he is a God of fear and punishment.  God the Son, Jesus Christ, is the extreme of inclusiveness – he was so inclusive he died so we could all be saved.  And the Holy Spirit is the creative force, a mysterious being that gives us the inspiration to be good people and maybe make a positive difference to the world.

And getting back to our Shamrock, this was the symbol that was used by St. Patrick to explain the Trinity to the Pagan Irish.  This is where I got the idea – so I hope that St. Patrick won’t be too upset by me borrowing his analogy, and/or symbolism!

When I think of the three elements of family support I also think of the human heart that has such strong association with both love and life, both of which are defined by their qualities of imperfection.

The heart (in every tradition that I am familiar with anyway) has iconic status in folk history.

It is a powerful symbol of inclusion, forgiveness (soft-hearted) or the opposite (hard-hearted), or clemency, mercy etc. (‘ah — have a heart’).

In terms of creativity, the rhythmic beat, which adds so much to the attractiveness of virtually all our music, is due largely to its association with our own heartbeat.

And the stopping of our heart beating is the ultimate boundary, in the sense that when it does finally stop, we are not alive anymore.

In our Irish Catholic tradition, the heart always had very important status in terms of the unconditional love that, the Catholic faith claims, Jesus extends to all humankind. 

This status was evident in the pictures of the Sacred Heart with the little red light underneath, not so common, of course, nowadays in our homes which are less religious than those of our near ancestors.

As part of my work I facilitate training groups and other forms of support groups.  A favourite light and lively of mine is where every group member is instructed to start clapping, randomly.

Inevitably, after a certain length of time, everyone begins clapping in unison.  This, I believe anyway, is due to an unconscious need that everyone has to be included in the greater group, i.e. to be at one with each other. The clapping is also (I believe anyway) reminiscent of our collective heartbeats.

(Of course, there is always one subversive who deliberately doesn’t comply)!