Listen to thisAlthough it is a complex concept, relational practice, simply put, is a practice that focuses on the relationship rather than the parties to the relationship. Garfat talked about the ‘space in-between’, as a way of distinguishing relationship-based practices, which focus on the parties to the relationship as interacting entities on the one hand (interpersonal practice), and relational practices that are located outside of those parties and their interactions in a space that is fluid and constantly evolving and into which the parties to the relationship may reach and collide or converge. This conceptualization has both theoretical and practice consequences. On the theoretical end of things, it locates child and youth care practice in a third space that is owned neither by the practitioner nor by the young person. In this way, that third space is a much more democratic space, even a decolonized space inasmuch as it disconnects ownership of how we are together from ourselves as autonomous beings. Within that third space, we exist in interdependence and rely on each other for how we are going to be together. It is a powerful way of thinking about our work differently than what is embedded in the decades of transactional, interpersonal, and power-laden narrative of relationships we ‘have’.
From a practice perspective, the relational space allows for much different practices than what was generated through relationship-focused spaces. It allows for what Bellefeuille and others refer to as relational inquiry, a way of being together that focuses not on how we behave toward one another or toward others, but instead of how we might understand and make meaning of our being together. In other words, it renders the practice reflective not merely for the practitioner but also for the young person. In so doing, we are tempted to understand relational practices as somehow soft practices, or practices that fail to achieve an outcome such as behavioural change or a better attitude. In fact, our commitment to relational practices is often quite limited or at least contingent. By that I mean that we are quick to abandon, or at least suspend, relational practice in order to impose purposeful change regiments, be that through old fashioned rewards and consequence approaches, point and level systems, token economies, or through slightly more updated evidence-based practices such as dialectical behavioural therapy, stop now and plan, or collaborative problem solving.
In fact, relational practices are anything but soft. There are times when such practices are outright brutal in what they demand of both practitioner and – even more so – young people. To ask anyone, but especially a teenager or someone even younger, to step outside of themselves and see – and be – in a fluid space beyond one’s full control, is a major ask for which neither practitioner nor young person are particularly well equipped. For one thing, the employment context of practitioners rarely allows for such approach. There are just too many expectations to move the young person, to change the young person, or to get the young person to do something they don’t want to do. Employers are looking for action with measurable and immediate impact. For the young person, who often has experienced nothing but grief when allowing themselves to go beyond their own material and physical manifestation, this comes with a demand for faith and confidence in systems and service contexts, as well as in persons, who have more often than not failed to come through. Beyond the employment context of practitioners, the space in-between us is transient and momentary, and making meaning of that space requires both reflection and analysis, and it requires both these things simultaneously. First, the young person must sense that space, then observe it, then navigate within it, and then analyze its meaning and respond to the outcome of that analysis. For most young people, the process stops at reflection, which is developmentally well outside of the norm for most teenagers. For neurodiverse young people it is an even greater task to perform all these functions simultaneously and in the right sequence. It seems almost absurd to expect them to do this. For racialized young people, the analysis inevitably requires a contextualization of much broader and much deeper issues and dynamics that are societal in nature but experienced in very intimate and personal ways, and usually in ways that are difficult and rightfully solicit resistance. The same might be said for young people identifying outside of binary gender constructions.
We may have made excellent progress on thinking about relational practices and refining what we mean by that, but for the most part, I very much doubt there are all that many relational practices to be found in service systems. Very often, we continue to be steeped in relationship-based practices, speak to ‘having’ relationships with young people, and sometimes labelling young people as an outcome of problems within those relationships. The question is: Can we move from this position where relationships continue to be commodified and understood as property?
One way of doing that is to move beyond the interpersonal context of relational practices. All too often, such practices are visualized or imagined as interactional ways of being between practitioner and young person (usually one young person as opposed to a group of young people). In fact, the practice literature is replete with examples of this and presents us with scenarios where one specific child and youth care practitioner is dealing with one specific young person, sometimes in the context of group-based settings and at other times in the context of case-based work contexts where one-on-one work is common. Is it possible to extend the concept of relational beyond that interpersonal context? Can relational practices be applied across structures, systems, and institutions while maintaining its necessary presence with individual young people and perhaps also groups of young people?
One way of doing this is to engage systems and institutions in the same ways we engage young people using relational approaches. This means on the one hand moving beyond the interpersonal context of child and youth care practice, while on the other hand avoiding the often-promoted approach of prioritizing systemic changes to interpersonal engagement. To some extent, this has strong parallels to what Jennifer White referred to as praxis nearly 20 years ago, but it sets the idea of praxis firmly under the umbrella of a relational practice. Specifically, much like relational practice in an interpersonal context does not focus on the parties to the relationship, relational practice in the systems context ought to look past the transactional aspects of institutional engagement and instead focus on the relationship in the fluid and largely unstructured spaces of how we are in relational to institutions, structure, and systems. Along with young people, their families, and their communities, child and youth care practitioners work to develop understanding and make meaning of how we are in our shared being with the systems and institution while inviting those systems and institutions to become present in spaces outside of their immediate control. In many respects, institutions (such as schools, for example), maintain precisely the same level of control and ownership (in neo-colonial style) over young people and their families as relationship-based practitioners do in the context of asserting ownership and commodifying their being with young people. For this reason, creating third spaces that promote a high level of interdependence both for individuals and for institutions create new opportunities for how we are in relation to the systemic contexts around us while at the same time continuing to be experienced through our interpersonal ways of being with young people.
In the end, relational practices, when engaged with the challenge of moving in those precarious spaces that are neither interpersonal at the exclusion of the systemic nor systemic at the exclusion of the interpersonal, provide an opportunity to avoid a frequently observed patterns of marginalizing young people and their needs or desires because as practitioners, we are excited to challenge institutions and systems; and similarly, it avoids the temptation to pretend that we can make meaning relationally with young people through our direct and one-on-one interactions when we ignore the much broader and deeply embedded structures and systems that shape and sometimes define the way we are together.
Relational practices are a conceptual framework that holds enormous value and potential for practice as well as for theoretical development within the field of child and youth care. But like so many other great concepts, we are prone to simplify this one, consider it interchangeable with predecessor concepts such as relationship-based practice. This special issue of CYC-Online is designed as a celebration of relational practices, which is wonderful. It should also serve to move this framework forward by critically engaging its challenges and possibilities.
