5.1.2 The Challenge

Here are brief accounts of experiences that I had that might give a hint as to what this Chapter on Cultural Matching is about:

First Experience

I was sitting in our agency one day and a woman who has been very hurt by life and is very well known to us dropped in.  She said that she’d been outside another agency and had wanted a cup of tea (code for a chat) and, as she put it, ‘I didn’t have the problem that they had a solution for – so I knew that I wouldn’t have been able to stay long’.

I’m not at all judging any other organisation here; I know full well how we can all be run off our feet, and also her perception was probably influenced by previous experiences of boundaries and whatever she was feeling at that time.

However I did feel very proud that she chose to have the chat and take the time that she felt that she needed with us.  Home is where we go if we feel at home, and obviously she felt at home with us.  It can be difficult for someone in distress if (as she stated above) she perceives that the solution that’s offered by the agency outside whose door she is standing doesn’t match the problem that she has.

Indeed, perhaps the presenting problem (if it’s identifiable at all) is a kind of lonesomeness or simply a world-weariness caused by isolation and a host of other factors related to imprisonment.

It is of great assistance to cultural matching (but sometimes quite challenging) to offer time – and only time – to someone. It enables expression of the uncensored, freely expressed opinions of people which is so crucial to our learning as practitioners.

Second Experience

I was at an event many years ago and I was describing the essence of what this Chapter is about. Afterwards a worker from a partner agency asked me ‘how do you involve families but stop them taking over?’ 

I acknowledge this as a respectful question from a fellow practitioner who was struggling with this issue as sometimes families affected by imprisonment (and in our Focus Group) have never felt a sense of power or inclusion – and the partner agency wished to do that but was aware of the difficulties that might ensue.

It is true that people require certain skills to be involved, or indeed be in charge, and foster development and growth in others.  People who are struggling with addiction and imprisonment may need support in acquiring such skills – but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be involved in a real and tangible way.

When I reflected on the question that my fellow practitioner asked me, that part of me that sees the world (kind of) differently to most people clicked in and I thought to myself ‘how do families involve professionals —– but stop them taking over?’ 

An equally valid question – I felt anyway!  And my colleague’s question was brilliant on another front too – it got me thinking about what taking over means.

Decisions made while suffering might not always be the ones that will bring long-term benefit.

For example it’s well known that we should not make significant, life-changing decisions immediately after a bereavement or similar trauma.  If we are very hurt and our suffering is ongoing (as we may be if we are affected by imprisonment) we may find it very tempting to choose a solution that might offer instant relief rather than think through the problem and choose a solution that might offer a better outcome in the longer term.

All too often the instant relief offers short lived happiness, (or a high) that is followed by unhappiness, (or a low).

This, of course, can be seen in addiction.

What we label as addiction is simply a series of decisions that we make that brings quick relief but are harmful and distressing, primarily to ourselves, but also to those around us, over time.  (Thinking about it, the most extreme example of short term quick relief which can be harmful and distressing in the long term is suicide).

So it might be important that families affected by imprisonment, in the midst of suffering, and sometimes deeply traumatised, are respectfully offered assistance with decision-making in respect of their own or their families’ destiny.

In such situations, it is equally as important that we practitioners don’t dominate the decision making process – because our options for an individual or family might not always be the best either!

This is because we (the educated professionals) may lack the lived experience that is needed to empathise with the suffering that is ongoing in families’ lives. 

We can, of course, choose to be polite and inoffensive, and consult to garner knowledge.  But if these things really matter to us we will want to be involved to the fullest, and work to include the families in our Focus Group in a meaningful way. 

They are, after all, the ones that are generally forgotten and whose opinions count for little.  (The post on the hierarchy of helping, and examples A and B that I gave at the end of the Chapter on the Pillars are relevant here).

So one way to culturally match our response is to meet people where they are at and not try to exclude the bits that we find awkward or might work against us or even, from our perception, might appear to undermine, or slow down what we are trying to do.

That is what I meant by challenging.