Hi

On Tuesday October 16^th we held the second follow-up meeting for the Educational Retreat. DISCLAIMER: These notes represent my own experience and are not to be considered ‘official minutes’.

1.   Meeting.  Present were Barry Fultonberg, Theresa Georges, Alma-Alicia Castillo, and Tom Jurgensen from the Office of Client Empowerment, and also myself, Stephen Blum, Director of Student Relations at C.S.P.P./Alliant Univ., and M.H. Director Nancy Pena.
2.   Agenda.  I presented the following agenda and also my report on the previous meeting, the bungee cord. A third document I was circulating is a theoretical article The ordinary, the original and the believable in psychology’s construction of the person by Ken Gergen. (See the E.R. Follow-Up website.) The agenda read:
   1. Position of Unity
      Obstacles
      Dialogue Question
      Bridges Revisited
   2. MHB Workshop
      Client Empowerment
      Discrimination Dilemma
      Workshop Approach
   3. SOC Workshops
      Adult
      Children
   4. Next Meeting

3.   Bridges.  After some discussion on ‘obstacles’, Nancy said we should stop focusing on that matter. She gave a long speech (maybe 15 minutes, which is lengthy for her style) which mainly concentrated on how we should pull together so we can work together on this follow-up task. She stressed the importance of consulting with the various working groups and being responsive to where people are at.
4.   Hornets.  The agenda that I presented was not followed. Something else was on the minds of the people. Upon considerable reflection, I realize that we have “stirred up a hornet’s nest.” We presented an Educational Retreat where the welcome speeches were given by the Mental Health Director and the co-founder of the old-time client activist group, the United Consumers Movement. We spoke to an historic reconciliation between the mental health system and the clients movement, which this welcome symbolizes. But if we are to proceed with this bold promise, we are going to have to be very wise about all of the sediment of a decade’s experience,which we are rousing up. Whence the metaphor of the hornet’s nest.
5.   Dialogue.  John Shotter describes a passage from the Russian dialogue specialist Voloshinov:

   

   [He] writes of two Russians sitting silently in a room. One of them says, “Well!.” The other does not respond. For us, as outsiders, this entire ‘conversation in miniature’ is utterly incomprehensible. In isolation, the utterance “Well!,” no matter how expressively intoned, is empty and unintelligible. But if we add that at the time it took place, both interlocutors knew that it was already May and that it was high time for spring to come; both were sick and tired of the protracted winter; and both were looking forward to the spring. Thus, in these circumstances, when they looked up at the window and saw that it had begun to snow, both were bitterly disappointed.

6.   Humor.  Specifically, there was controversy around the ‘black humor’ of the clients. Many professionals in private circles describe the situations of clients in language which even they often style as ‘black humor’. In the last decade, with clients increasingly gaining access to the corridors of mental health, we often have occasion to stumble upon/overhear conversations in this modality. This does not seem to be self-conscious language, although there are other professionals who challenge this as a monological practice and practice restraint. The point here, however, is that many clients have a parallel sort of ‘black humor’ and also similarly others of the client activists have challenged this as a monological practice and likewise practice restraint. In our stirring up that hornet’s nest, this culture-based language difference appears as the buzzing of the hornets!
7.   Center.  So anyway Nancy’s point is well-taken, that we need to forge some kind of working unity, and that therefore [my interpretation] we need to work through dialogical complexities like the above. The union recognition model again shows its prowess, as we on the committee now have to negotiate trust at this new level.  :-)  As we think about the humor of the various mental health venues where we expect to give workshops, this must give us pause. Indeed, we have to look at the modules of our presentation [morality focus, discrimination dilemma, trauma of treatment, accountability perspective] and see ourselves as immersed in the problem and challenged anew to rise to the occasion.
8.   Whirlwind.  In Hosea 8:7 we read:

   

   For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.

   Our little hornet’s nest is localised and in a situation where we hope to give it concentrated attention. I guess this will keep us busy for a bit.

The next meeting of the Educational Retreat Follow-Up Committee is Tuesday, November 6^th, 3-4:30PM at M.H. Administration. For input you may contact me at 793-6476.

Respectfully

Andrew Phelps