Before we go any further, it is important to mention that there is a certain complication inherent in promoting (or even analysing or investigating) the root foundations that makes it all a little more interesting —– and challenging!
Usually, we are consciously aware, immediately, that there is something awry with our experience of universal phenomena in the physical world. For example, our body can feel temperature falling – we get cold, or we feel unsafe if we are cycling too fast, or we can feel physical pressure if our bedclothes are uncomfortably heavy (gravity). And we may be able to do something about any of the above. Many of the tricks that magicians do surprise us because they seem to defy physical laws – and we try to figure out, logically or cognitively, how that happens.
However, if there is something awry with our experience of their psychological equivalents, (i.e if we don’t have relationship, or we struggle with identity or our natural emergence is constricted or blocked) we may not be consciously aware of it immediately. Rather, we may experience:
~ Depression (because our relationships are unfulfilling for us).
~ Sadness/loss (because we don’t have a strong identity).
~ Anger (because our emergence is constricted, that is, our natural gifts are not appreciated or affirmed).
Or many more emotions due to lack of or loss of any of the root foundations.
We may experience all of these emotions and many more besides without really knowing why.
Addressing the not-knowing-why challenge will be the subject of the Chapter on Modalities, and will form much of the content of the remaining Sections.
For now, it is enough to say that practitioners sharing power and holding people’s suffering, in a non-intrusive but inclusive way, sometimes for years or even over a generation, will optimise creation of the conditions where parents who are very hurt can protect their children by allowing the root foundations to flourish.
This is true no matter what context the work takes place in, i.e. whether or not it is in the community/voluntary, statutory, or private sector.
The little challenge (that’s tongue in cheek – it’s a big challenge really) is in sharing power, which (as I have stated elsewhere) is not for everyone.
Many people go a long way to include very hurt and vulnerable people in a consultative capacity and then make plans based on those consultations – and that is not a bad thing to do. (It is certainly better than doing something without consultation – a lot of that happens also).
But when we practitioners truly share power, we don’t really do things for people, we do them with people, on as much their terms as our terms. (When we do things for people, we almost always do it on our terms). Doing things for people ultimately leads to exclusion rather than the more favoured – in terms of nourishing potential – inclusion.
Now I have observed that when we set out to do things with vulnerable people (with great intentions) there is a temptation to default to a cognitive response when an emotional problem presents.
This is a misinterpretation of the presenting problem – which is emotional. An emotional response encourages inclusion, whereas a cognitive response often does the opposite.
The big down-side of doing things with people (which, from the practitioner’s point of view – is a big challenge) is that it slows things down as consensus is reached. (There may be another challenge too, of course, the humility one)!
But (I believe anyway) greater dividends are accrued in the long term.
For example (to use an analogy) I think that you will all agree that good enough parenting involves doing things with children. Doing things for them might speed things up a bit, but is harmful in the long run.