Process Work With Developmentally Delayed Teenagers

Process Oriented Psychology, developed by Arnold Mindell during his work with individuals (1984,1985), couples (1987), and later with groups, has been applied to various fields of psychotherapy and life. In this article I would like to show the usefulness of a process-oriented attitude and to describe attempts to utilize process-oriented techniques in work with developmentally delayed teenagers with "behavioral problems."1

Major changes in attitude towards mental retardation have been observed in the past few decades. These changes are determined by a new way of thinking, which has been expressed by M.W. Blackwell as follows: "Each child and each adult, regardless of the level of retardation, is more human than retarded" (Cited in Koscielska, 1989, p. 71.) This new attitude has manifested itself in certain ways:

growing interest in psychological needs and rights of people with learning difficulties (Chazan and Laing 1982, Craft and Craft 1982, Hattersley et. al., 1987, Koscielska 1987)

changes in global/local policies in many countries in the direction of "care in community"

introducing new, less valuative terms ("mental retardation" is often replaced by new concepts, i.e. "learning difficulties," "mental handicap," "people with special needs" or "people of special care")

elaborating new methods of work, including behavioral modification as well as other approaches.4

The only information referring directly to Process Work and mental retardation that I am familiar

with is chapter 13 "Mental Retardation," pp. 149-161 in City Shadows.

The concept "care in community" refers to policies and organizational changes which are directed

towards closing big institutions for the mentally retarded and instead organizing little hostels,

family care units etc.

See for example Hattersley et. al., 1987.

For example, Attack, S.M. (1980) Art Activities for the Handicapped, London Sovenir Press;

Jones, M.C. (1983) Behavior Problems in Handicapped Children. The Beedh Tree House

Approach. London Souvenir Press, E & A Ltd.

However, there is still a lot to be done in order to understand and communicate with people with mental handicaps. In everyday practice they are too often treated as objects to be taken care of or to be changed, or even as a burden. They are expected not to make trouble. It is taken for granted that psychologists, doctors and caretakers know best what is good for retarded persons. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who do their best to apply new concepts and ideas, but feel helpless as to knowing how. Process Work could be very helpful in this field. First, the idea that what happens is right and has a meaning helps to change an initial attitude towards a retarded person; it does not have to be "what a tragedy!" or "poor boy/girl." It is just another meeting, another challenge. You don't have to have all the answers in advance. No one knows who will be the teacher and who the learner. Trusting the process, you can feel safe and open, and start with the "beginner's mind." According to Mindell,

An explorer with a beginner's mind would see the 'patient'as someone he does not understand, someone to be discovered. The process concept adds to the idea that to discover someone you must pay strict attention to his behavior and events around him (Mindell, 1988, p. 21). Following his advice, you may use perception, thinking, feelings and intuition to find what you need at the moment you need it.

Second, there are some clear indications about how to communicate. To quote Mindell again, "The process approach to the individual is to find the mode of communication in which the patient is experiencing himself at a given moment, and work in that mode or channel with methods adopted by that channel" (1988, p. 21). According to Mindell, "The retarded person is usually kinesthetically oriented and performs poorly relative to others in verbal expression" (1988, pp. 149-150). Thus it is advisable to communicate in a non-verbal mode, with movements, emotions or sounds.

Third, such process concepts like "primary and secondary processes," "dreaming up," and "channels," to mention but a few, are very helpful in understanding what is happening. In addition, process theory does not reduce reality to what has been known before the event you are trying to understand.

Last but not least, there are specific techniques used in Process Work that can be applied in work with retarded people. In the second part of this article I will present such attempts.

Observations which I would like to present here refer to my experience from the residential and respite care unit for "exceptional teenagers" (in the London suburbs), where I worked for three months as a caretaker. There were four boys in residence, and up to ten other children coming for various periods of time. I will focus on experiences with two residents of the house (the names have been changed).

I have chosen the examples from situations that were most interesting or most difficult for me. These were not psychotherapeutic sessions, but parts of long days spent with the children. Each situation has been described in terms of events, signals, some things that were happening around and/or my own feelings. These descriptions are not based on video-analysis (I did not have an opportunity to record anything); the only material I had was my detailed notes made at the end of each day. The description of each event is followed by comments - the attempts to understand it in process terms.

John

John is 16 years old. He has blond hair, blue eyes and a charming smile. He is tall and fit. He has no speech, but makes various sounds and understands a lot of words.

Before I met him, I had been told that he was able to be "nice" sometimes (especially if he liked someone), but most of the time he was very difficult or aggressive.

John has been here for four years - his longest stay in one place. It is said in his assessment that he developed normally until 15-18 months of age when he was given the measles vaccination. John stopped talking and walking; he eventually walked again but his speech did not develop. He was sent to a residential setting; after a few years he lost contact with his mother, and then went from one place to another.

In the shed - the first contact

I first met John in the playground in a little shed in the courtyard. We spent more than an hour there. He was walking from one side to the other, knocking, looking at details with curiosity, and making sounds. There were a lot of feelings in his voice and it seemed to me that many figures were appearing. I tried to communicate with them - with him - in the same way, making sounds, imitating his voice or expressing my momentary emotions. Time was passing by very quickly.

Comments

Mindell points out that "To avoid neglecting and ignoring the retarded person because he does not relate in a verbal mode, it is necessary to understand his communication" (1988, p. 155). Trying to do so, I felt welcomed to John's world; he helped me to switch channels and to communicate with sounds, movements and emotions. I was amazed when I realized how complex his personality was, how many parts of it he was able to express by just making sounds.

Introducing the Monster - Getting Dreamed Up

One day (it was two weeks since I had started my work) a strange thing happened to me when I was with John. Here are my notes about it:

John seemed to be in a bad mood since he got up today. He ran out of his room, hit and pinched me. I became angry, although it was not painful. For the first time I decided to punish him by putting him in his room for five minutes (according to his "behavioral program" this should be done when John attacks somebody). He wet himself. During breakfast he kept making silly faces, pinching me slighdy, making a mess on the table. He was naughty sometimes before and usually I didn't mind, I tried to understand it. But this time I was not at all interested in understanding, I felt more and more angry. After a while I felt like killing him. I noticed that I was not myself anymore, that my rage was inappropriate, but I couldn't stop myself from feeling it. I decided to bring it in somehow. We went together to the kitchen, just the two of us. I told him that I really liked

him, but there was something in me that would like to kill. I made a step back saying "It looks like this," and made an angry face, raising my hands slowly... I felt like a monster, so I said "It is a monster" and acted it out, showing him in slow motion that the monster could hit or strangle (without touching him). John smiled, then laughed loudly and happily. I came back from the monster role. John calmed down. I said we needed some rest and he came close to me. We went to the room, sat down and I gave him a cuddle. The rest of the day was quiet.

Comments

John was angry this morning for some reason. There was also something that stopped him from showing his anger. The angry figure was appearing and disappearing - as if it was trying to overcome a controlling figure, and then hiding again. John did not have a tantrum as he used to (I have heard about them a lot), but instead I almost had one!

My anger was a dreamed up reaction. According to J. Goodbread:

Dreaming up is nature's way of ensuring that the process continue in spite of the presence of the edges against those processes. Dreaming up occurs around "incomplete" or partially represented processes which manifest themselves in double signals. They 'recruit' other people to represent them. The process must go on. (1989, pp. 53-54)

The monster that came up out of my reaction was the way to express anger without hurting anybody. It was able to show anger, but it was under control at the same time. I do not know if John got access to his anger. But it seems we both needed it at this moment. And later it became an important part of our relationship.

At the Craft Fair - What Happens is Right

One day we went to the craft fair. There were big tents with colorful flags hanging around. John stopped in front of the first tent and didn't want to move. It seemed he was afraid. He held my arm with both hands, but he was also looking attentively, as if he was fascinated and curious. We went up to another tent, and again he observed it, held my hand and did not want to go in. I wanted to push him, but then I decided to try to notice what he could see, as if I had no previous knowledge about tents. And I realized it was a strange, big, unknown thing, where people go and disappear, with colorful things moving and a lot of noise inside. Well, from this point of view it was a bit frightening, but also fascinating. I shared my feelings with John, telling him "Look at that, it is so strange, but so interesting as well," with a lot of emotion in my voice. John smiled and let go of my hand. I said "I am a bit scared, but I am so curious that I will go and check what is inside" and I slowly went two steps in and came back, saying "It is amazing!" John was observing me all the time, then he took my hand and slighdy pulled me towards the tent. We both stepped in and looked at all the things inside.

Comments

Goodbread states that it is the fundamental law of process oriented psychology: "What Happens is Right and Should be Encouraged. It only looks wrong when we do not understand its content sufficiently" (1987, p. 10). Standing in front of the first tent with John I was just about to say "Come on, there is nothing to be afraid of," when suddenly I asked myself, "How do I know that?" My hidden assumption which almost led me to deny his reaction was that it was wrong to stop and gaze at a simple, normal tent. Fortunately I realized it before I reacted automatically. I thought to myself, "Let me try another way of looking."

Later I noticed how important it is, especially with retarded children, to accept their reactions, to confirm their right to feel or to see what they actually feel or see. If they have the opportunity to express it and if it is understood and accepted, they smoothly go on to another stage of the process.

Look at What You Are Doing - Inviting The Metacommunicator

John tends to pinch or bite when he becomes suddenly excited, seeing a boat on the river, having a leaf fall down from the tree in front of his nose, or in many other situations. Here is an example from my notes:

We were in the playroom where we were playing with cushions, throwing and catching them. This is one of John's favorite games. At a certain point he became very excited and his behavior was kind of chaotic. He came up to me and started to pinch me. It was not very painful, and I was still in a very good mood. In a calm voice, with some curiosity, I said "Watch your hands. What are they doing? Do you know what they are doing? Do they want to pinch? Watch them." John looked at his hands, seemed to be very surprised, and calmed down.

Comments

In such situations it seems that he does not pinch intentionally, with all his will and awareness. Pinching is happening to him; he has almost no control over it. In process terms primary processes are "those expressions with which the individual identifies himself, either implicitly or explicitly. Primary processes can be identified even in strongly altered states of consciousness. Secondary processes refer to all other processes which an individual does not experience as belonging to him, and which he speaks about as if they happened to him from outside, or as caused by another agent." (Mindell, 1988, p. 25)

Pinching is secondary, and John seems to be on the verge of an extreme state. By that I mean that the metacommunicator (someone in a person "who is able to talk about his experiences and perceptions" - (Mindell, 1988, p. 25) is hardly accessible. What I tried to do was to ask his metacommunicator to come back.

I tried to invite a fairly neutral metacommunicator rather than a critical controller. It was possible because John was still a bit "here," and because he did not pinch too much, so I was not defensive or angry. As long as I was genuinely interested in what was happening it was like magic; he was so surprised watching his hands that he

stopped immediately. I expressed my curiosity, not rejecting or criticizing the pinching figure. John didn't get an access to the pinching figure yet, but at least he was able to observe it.

The Monster is Unpredictable - Working Without a Metacommunicator

I invite the monster to our relationship from time to time. It happens that John suddenly starts to make silly faces, pinch, bite, pull my hair, runs around with an angry look and screams. I feel I have no contact with him in such moments; he behaves as if he was possessed by strange forces, and there is no one to talk to. I try to work without a metacommunicator. Here are two examples:

John was having his bath. All of a sudden he started to splash water all over the place, and to make faces. I tried to play with him in the same way, but he apparently didn't enjoy it at all. He jumped out of the water and hit me. He stopped for a second and looked down, then ran away screaming, came back and hit me again much harder. I made the most horrible face I could and said, "Here I am! I am the monster! I am angry - look at me!" I raised my hands, made them look dangerous, ready to strangle. John looked at me as if hypnotized. I came up closer, saying, "This is the monster, watch it, it is around us!" I looked up and to the sides. John followed my gaze. He probably saw the monster more clearly than I did. I stepped back, relaxed my face and hands, and in my normal voice I asked, "What shall we do? It is still here." John raised his eyes. Then he looked down for a longer while (half a minute or more), and later came close to me and gave me a hug.

Another day we went to the cinema. John started to pinch me and pulled my hair suddenly; it was really painful. He stopped for a moment and looked at me as if he didn't know what to do next. Then he pinched me. I turned to him and whispered "Wow! here is the monster coming again! It is unpredictable and it wants to attack us!" John stopped, looked down, became very quiet, and after a few minutes he put his head on my shoulder and I gave him a cuddle.

Comments

In such situations John behaves as if he was possessed by anger; the anger controls him and directs his behavior. Aggression happens to him as much as it happens to me. The secondary process (anger) becomes primary without a metacommunicator. He still tries to control it (stopping for a second, looking down), but controlling is less accessible than anger.

The monster which I act out is threatening, but it does not execute its threats, it is not violent or physically aggressive. It expresses the anger, but it is also under control. Acting the monster, I also confirm John's right to be angry. Hie monster game was an important part of our relationship.

Nick

Nick is a tall, handsome, 16 year old boy. He has blond hair and blue eyes. I had been working for a month already when I first met him. He came back from holidays

he spent with his father (his parents are divorced, and his father takes care of him during holidays and most of the weekends). Nick did not want to stay. He seemed to be very tense, his movements sharp and determined. There was a lot of noise around staff members trying to stop him, and his father talking about how hard it was to leave him. Somebody said the father should go, while Nick kept repeating "being a good boy" and "sorry." I couldn't understand what was going on. Nick is labelled as "mentally retarded with autistic tendencies." He is very tense most of the time. He presents a lot of fixed behavioral patterns (called "obsessive"); if such activity is triggered, he will fight to finish it no matter what the obstacles. Nick can speak a little; he uses simple phrases without pronouns; his vocabulary is not complex, but he seems to understand a lot.

Police and Rebel - Dreaming Up No

Here are the notes about my first afternoon with Nick:

Nick came back from school, ran up to the play-room on the third floor and put on a tape. Other boys who came back earlier were watching TV. Somebody who was on duty came up to him and said "No!" Nick didn't react at first but after a while screamed and bit himself. The tape-recorder had been switched off and he fought to switch it on again. Another staff member (there were four of us at the moment) began to struggle with him. Nick ran to the other side of the room. He was quiet for a few minutes, then he vomited on a table. Somebody ran up shouting "No! Don't you dare do it again!" Nick smiled sarcastically, ran up to the TV-set and changed the channel. "No!" - another person said loudly. He did it again; when he was stopped by force he bit himself and screamed. He sat down for a moment, then got up and tried to run out of the room. Somebody jumped on him and pulled him back. I did nothing. I was stuck, playing with other children and watching the whole situation, unable to react.

The next morning I was on duty with a woman who came to help me just on that day (she usually worked with other children), so I was the one who was responsible. We were having breakfast; there were four boys and two of us. Nick ate his cereal in less than one minute and ran away from the table; he was very tense, swallowing his breakfast rapidly, and all of a sudden he jumped up and ran away, as if he broke an invisible barrier. Well, this was against the rules - he should wait until the others finished. I told him to come back. He didn't. I waited for awhile, then went up to him and asked him to sit at the table again. He did not react, and I was getting angry. I told him once more to come. He did - but after a few seconds he ran away again. This was repeated several times. Other boys were getting impatient, laughing, making silly faces, pushing things from one side of the table to another. I was more and more angry. The only thing I had in mind was that Nick should sit at the table, and when he ran away for the fifth time, I went up to him and tried to pull him back. He resisted so I started to pull harder - until I realized I was in the middle of a fight! I couldn't believe it was me. I stopped and apologized. I had tears in my eyes; I felt stupid and guilty and I said it Nick was listening attentively. We sat on the floor; he put his head on my shoulder and then he said my name.

Comments

What has happened? Thinking about the first afternoon I realized that there was something in Nick that created the world of "NO." It brought out prohibitions, limitations, constraints and anger. In the afternoon, being just an observer, I was shocked how silly the staff members' behavior was, talking and shouting at him although he apparently didn't hear the content, executing their power just for power's sake. Yet the very next morning I behaved exactly the same way!

This was a very strong experience. I was not aware of my feelings; I didn't notice my anger. I also didn't notice the figure that was stopping and limiting Nick, and instead I became this figure. This was a clear example of how "Dreaming-up tends to cloud the therapist's awareness. It induces him to complete process segments which the client leaves incomplete, but this tends to happen independently of his will!H (Goodbread, unpublished manuscript, p. 75).

We (the staff-members) were all dreamed-up to be the police, insensitive, focused on stopping the rebel at any cost. Even during the staff meeting it appeared only as a problem: how to stop Nick from doing this or that. Why?

There was a 'stopping' part in Nick's behavior, an uncompleted policeman role. Most of the time Nick was tense and restless, then he suddenly jumped, ran away, switched the TV on and off, as if he managed to dodge his guard. But the rebel wasn't able to free himself; the policeman was back immediately, sitting on his back (I mean, Nick often looks as if somebody was sitting on his back).

I think Nick had no access to the rebel. His sudden behaviors happened to him and then became primary. Other people took over the role of the policeman, which was less accessible for Nick at these moments. This is what I understand about the first afternoon.The situation was complex because apparently his metacommunica-tor was missing. Nick seemed to have no ability to communicate about his experiences at the moment.

Let's try to analyze the process structure in the second situation. At the very beginning of our breakfast Nick's primary process was to be nice and in control, i.e. to eat his breakfast at the table. The rebel was secondary, hidden in Nick's impatient and tense movements. Then the rebel won, conquering the policeman, and became primary. Using metaphors, I would say that the rebel evaded his guard, and ran away leaving the policeman behind. But what was left was just an empty role, the uniform, so to speak, and I put it on immediately.

One more thing is interesting. It is said in Nick's assessment that he needs "clear boundaries," that a firm "no" stops his obsessive behavior, and that it is a relief for him. It looks like recognition of the policeman role. On the other hand, this way of thinking just legitimizes the dreamed up reactions of the others, and is not helpful for Nick to get access to this part of himself.

Sick boy - Amplification and Mirroring

I became much more alert while being with Nick. I am still very grateful for the lesson I've learned on his account. I didn't want to find myself in the middle of a fight again. It wasn't easy because the "policeman" was hovering around all the time, always ready to execute his power.

I noticed that staff members were getting angry (dreamed-up to be the police) when they talked about Nick "making himself sick." I decided to observe such a situation very carefully. Here are notes about how it looks:

Nick is just about to "make himself sick." His body is tense, torso and head bent down, mouth open. Then he vomits, smiles and says, "sick boy, sick boy." The next time I saw him bend down and open his mouth, I came over. I slightly pushed his head down so he was even more bent; I got myself tense, mirroring his position, saying, "sick boy, sick boy" in a choked voice. Nick looked at me, relaxed and smiled. I sat next to him and asked if there was anything I could do for him or that we could do together. Nick said, "being a good boy," and I confirmed it, "Yes, you are a good boy." We sat together for a while singing songs.

Comments

There is a certain atmosphere around Nick's vomiting. Saying that it is a "behavioral problem," means it is wrong and should be changed at any cost. Nobody would say that he "vomits;" the expression in use is, "Nick makes himself sick" -this implies that he does it intentionally. It is said in his assessment (and it is a shared opinion among staff members) that it is "attention-seeking behavior," so in order to change it it should be either punished or ignored. Some of the people can't ignore it if he does it on a new carpet or clean clothes, so they shout at him.

It was difficult for me to look at the vomiting with the "beginners mind," because there were so many ready-made responses and answers. And I don't think I managed to forget them all. I just tried to follow the signals I was able to notice.

What was the process structure? At the beginning the primary process was "playing and being nice." "Being sick" came from the background; it seemed to get more primary when Nick said "sick boy" and vomited. I tried to amplify the process of being sick by pushing Nick down; I was mirroring it in an amplified way. It was I who expressed the process (saying "sick boy," mirroring and exaggerating movements and sounds). Nick was a spectator, just watching what was going on, and apparently he liked it. Something had changed; he smiled, relaxed and said, "being a good boy." Being nice became primary. Perhaps the other part - sick, naughty, sarcastic - had been expressed enough for that moment. I don't think it was enough for Nick to get the message; but maybe it was a beginning.

Obsessive Behavioral Patterns - Tangled Primary and Secondary Processes

Nick is said to present "obsessive behavioral patterns." How does it look? He becomes tense, all his muscles are contracted. There is usually one thing that he focuses on, something that switches on the pattern. It may be a vacuum cleaner; then Nick will fight to vaccum the whole space (no matter how clean it is). It may be a pot with leftovers; he will jump up, grab the pot and run to throw it in the bin and wash it up. Or it can be a piece of dirty clothing. If he finds it upstairs, he will grab it and run down to the laundry, try to get a key from one of the staff members, put dirty things (even if it is only one pair of socks) in the washing machine, add washing powder and switch it on. All his energy seems to be mobilized while he is carrying

out such a pattern. He seems to be taken by an enormous force, and once the pattern is switched on, he will fight to the death to carry it to completion. He is apparently in an altered state; there is nobody to communicate with. It is said that he needs a firm "No!" to stop the pattern, but it usually means using force and often one person is not strong enough to stop him.

Comments

These repeated, fixed behavioral patterns have several characteristics in common. There is extreme tension and determination; a missing metacommunicator, the need to stop the behavior is brought out of the people around; the patterns seem to be switched on by external clues and have to be performed through to the end; they are similar in content.

Content of these patterns relates to the household routine. Vacuuming, washing up, doing laundry, even putting on rubber gloves (see next paragraph) - these are the things that a nice boy can do to help at home. When such a pattern is already switched on, primary processes seem to be, accordingly, vacuuming, washing up dishes, etc. Fighting (which can be seen in Nick's determination, in the way he acts) seems to be more secondary; it happens to him and it brings out counter-attacks from other people. These two processes (good boy and fighter) are tightly tangled together in these patterns; they seem to be inseparable and difficult to unravel. Who switches these actions on? Nick starts it in response to visual stimuli: vacuum, rubber gloves, dirty dishes etc. The figure who is in control of these behaviors is projected onto external objects. I suppose this figure is very far from Nick's identity.

Rubber Gloves On - Taking Over the Process that is Far From Identity

One day I was upstairs just with Nick, while the other boys and staff-members went for a walk. We were drawing and listening to music together. Nick wanted a drink, so we went to the kitchen where he noticed pink rubber gloves laying on the table. He became tense immediately, all his attention focused on one point, and he began to repeat loudly, in a very determined way, "Rubber gloves! Rubber gloves on!"

I took the gloves with me and we sat on the floor in the play room. Tbning my voice into Nick's, I said "Rubber gloves! We are rubber gloves! We want to be on Nick's hands." I repeated it several times even louder and in a more determined way, and I helped him put them on. Nick smiled and relaxed. He looked a bit surprised. It happened that I took three gloves with me, so I put one on my hand saying again "Rubber gloves on!" Then, "I am rubber glove, I want to be here!" I looked at the glove on my hand and said firmly, "Listen you glove, I don't really need you and I am strong enough to take you off whenever I want," and I took it off. Nick seemed to be fascinated; he watched me very carefully, gradually becoming less and less tense, laughing joyfully. I looked at his hands and said, "Hi, you gloves, what are you doing on Nick's hands?!" Nick said "Take it off... So I helped him take it off. He seemed to be relaxed and happy. I said, "Listen you gloves, Nick is strong enough to do what he wants." He smiled again. We were sitting for a while, enjoying this

relaxed and playful atmosphere, being close to each other and laughing. The whole afternoon was nice and peaceful. We went for a long ride by mini-bus; Nick was sitting next to me with his head on my shoulder or his hand in mine. He repeated, "being a good boy" from time to time, and I kept answering, "Yes, you are a good boy."

Comments

What is the process structure in this case? Nick had suddenly accessed a primary process of "putting rubber gloves on" (a few years ago it was the beginning of cleaning up things; now it is autonomous). There was a figure who switched it on, represented by rubber gloves. Nick usually would fight to get the gloves - fight against whom? There must be another figure somewhere; this other figure was often taken over by staff members who tried to stop Nick, but it was also inside him. Once the pattern was 'on,' putting the gloves on became more primary and fighting or resisting more secondary. Perhaps "putting the gloves on" is associated with the "good boy" figure, and the other part is a fighter, a "naughty" one. Anyway, I tried to take over still another part, the one that usually starts the whole thing, so I "became the glove" and attempted to express this position. There must have been some kind of information in this that was not available for me, but became more accessible for Nick. The moment the part represented by gloves had been expressed Nick got relaxed and happy. I have never seen him be so much at ease before. It encouraged me to follow my intuition. At this moment I felt there was something in the air that was ready to "combat the gloves," and I tried to express it. Apparently Nick liked it; he laughed and took his gloves off. He wasn't a victim at this moment, HE did it, it was not something happening to him.

The figures that appeared during this session might be connected with some of Nick's long-term processes. One hypothesis is that there is one part that demands being nice, good and helpful (from the other part). This part is powerful and threatening. It is ready to kill for disobedience. This one switches on behaviors such as "rubber gloves on," vacuuming, laundry etc. Then there is a good boy who tries to obey - he is frightened. He is ready to do what is to be done - he needs love. And there is the rebel who would like to resist, who protests against being terrorized, who wants to do what he wants. These processes seem tangled together. The tyrant and the rebel were expressed a bit during our session. Perhaps "the good boy" felt left alone, and therefore he demanded attention and recognition later on in the afternoon. This is but one possible interpretation.

Conclusion

Techniques that I found most helpful in my work with children with learning difficulties were amplification, mirroring, taking over, and acting (Mindell, 1987, pp. 21-26).

My ideas and interventions were based on process literature and my intuition. I am sure that what I have described in this article are just the initial attempts to apply Process Work in everyday practice in residential settings for the mentally retarded. The advantages I noticed are the following: First, communication with regard to the

Process Work With Developmental^ Delayed Teenagers

children's way of communicating was much more effective than talking to an absent metacommunicator or imposing the verbal mode as the only "proper" one. Second, process theory helped to make the world around me comprehensible. It reduced feelings of helplessness, so common among those who work with retarded people with behavioral problems. The interventions applied enabled me to cope with some of the difficult situations without force; some of the interventions helped to develop close relationships or to provide more awareness.

But nothing works if it is used as a "ready-made" technique. No intervention can be repeated successfully just because it worked in a similar situation, unless it comes up again in a present situation, not just out of memory. Perhaps it sounds obvious in process frames of reference. It was not always so obvious in practice. I sometimes longed for a fixed tool, especially when there were a few unexpected difficult events happening at the same time at the end of a difficult day. Sometimes it was tempting to repeat some kind of reaction just as an intervention, pretending that I cared, but actually in order to make someone leave me in peace. Thanks to the children, I was never successful in such attempts. They would always discover that I was not genuine, even if I myself was only half-aware of it. In such a way they helped me, like no one before, to see what I was doing in relationship in every second.

I also noticed that if only I told myself that I was too tired to be present, aware and open, I had a tendency to slip into the authoritarian role of someone who is right. Usually the only effect was that I became even more tired, and the situation - much worse.

I have learned a lot from the children. They have shown me how to look at the world with the real "beginner's mind", to see the mystery of the simplest things (like circles on water if a stone is thrown in it). They have taught me not to say things I do not mean, not to react automatically, to be aware. If my trials and mistakes can be of any help to people who are retarded or to those who work with them, I would be very happy.

Bogna Szymkiewicz has a PhD. in Psychology and teaches at the Family Research Institute at Warsaw University. Bogna also works as a therapist at a psychotherapeutic center. She has been a student of Process Work since 1990, is an active member of a Polish POP group, and has six month old twins.

Bibliography

1. Chazan, M, Laing, A. (1982). The Early Years. Children with Special Needs, Stratford: The Open
2. University Press. Craft, M. (1982). Sex and Mentally Handicapped: A Guide for Parents and Teachers, London:
3. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Goodbread, J.H. (1987). The Dreambody Toolkit. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Goodbread, J.H. (1989). "Dreaming Up Reality". Unpublished manuscript, Zurich. Goodbread, J.H. (1989). "Dreaming Up at Collective Edges: How Professional Identity Keeps
4. Psychotherapy from Developing", The Journal of Process Oriented Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 1. Hattersley, J., Hosking, G.P., Morrow, D., Myers, M. (1987). People with Mental Handicaps.
5. Perspectives on Intellectual Disability. London and Boston: Faber & Faber Ltd. Koscielska, M. (1987). "Spoleczne funkcjonowanie osob uposledzonych umyslowo." Nowiny Psy-
6. chologiczne - Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego 5 (52), pp. 60-70. Koscielska, M. (1989). "Psychologiczne podstawy zycia dzieci i doroslych uposledzonych umyslowo
7. w domach opieki spolecznej." Nowiny Psychologiczne - Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego 1 (60), pp. 71-93. Mindell, Arnold. (1984). Dreambody, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Mindell, Arnold. (1985a). River's Way. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
8. Mindell, Arnold. (1985b). Working with the Dreaming Body. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan
9. Paul. Mindell, Arnold. (1987). The Dreambody in Relationships. London and New York: Routledge &
10. Kegan Paul. Mindell, Arnold. (1988). City Shadows: psychological interventions in psychiatry. London and New
11. York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.