As facilitators, we come to our interactions with facilitated communication users from a position of great personal privilege. This is likely not a position any of us has actively sought for ourselves. However, we find ourselves in initially unequal relationships with facilitated communication users by virtue of

1. our fluency with spoken and written language;
2. our recognized status as clinicians, staffpersons, teachers or parents; and
3. our being in a position to help individuals engage in activities they are not currently capable of without our help.

Ironically, most of us who act as facilitators and find ourselves in that position of privilege have as one of our explicit objectives the empowerment of people for whom we facilitate. We wish to assist them in taking control over aspects of their own lives which have previously been managed by others. We seek to help them in speaking assertively of their needs, desires and goals, where previously they might have been limited to reactive roles. We wish to assist them in advocating powerfully on their own behalf, and on behalf of others. The task for us as facilitators, then, is this: How do we acknowledge and then move away from our initial position of privilege, in order to act as allies in the empowerment of those for whom we facilitate?

Several clinicians who have assisted people with challenging behaviors have examined their role largely in terms of the power relationships that exist in the person's life (Lovett, 1985; McGee, Menolascino, Hobbs, & Menousek, 1987). One useful approach to thinking about this issue is to examine the posture we take toward the person for whom we are facilitating. This concept was developed by John McGee and his colleagues as a way of looking at our relationship with someone we are assisting in confronting challenging behaviors. McGee et al. describe common postures which ultimately serve to disempower the individual whom we are seeking to help. When we examine the facilitated communication relationship, we may find ourselves adopting similar postures, which impose limits on the individuals with whom we facilitate.

The overprotective posture: McGee et al. describe this posture as follows:

There is a warmth and concern for the person and a kindness that is reflected in the caregiver's actions. However, dependency is taught and maintained. The person is perceived as a victim. The care giver is regarded as superior. There is considerable charity, but little justice. Opportunities for growth through learning are either removed as soon as difficulty is encountered or never provided. There is little chance to learn (p.35).

The authoritarian posture: According to McGee et al., with the authoritarian posture,

...Order and compliance take priority over human interactions. The goal is to eliminate undesirable behaviors.... This posture is best summarized in one word -- compliance. (p.35).

Toward reciprocity

...is based on a respect for the person as a human being, one with whom we share a mutuality by the very nature of our humanness and an interdependence in our interactions and efforts toward common goals....It requires mutual trust and cooperation. These feelings replace the attitude of superior worth that is expressed in the other postures described above... (p.37).

If someone who is facilitating the communication of another person sets out to act from a posture of solidarity, how will that posture translate into day-to-day decisions and actions? These are some specific suggestions for fostering solidarity and reciprocity, leading to empowerment of the facilitated communication user.

1. The facilitated communication user is dis empowered by being rushed, by having to compete for our attention, or by having the facilitator deciding when the conversation will begin and end. (Sometimes, scheduling is out of both people's control; in those situations, the information of how much time is available should be shared from the outset.)

   If there is not enough time to finish a conversation, the facilitator needs to be explicit about future opportunities for continuing it. The facilitator should make note of the topic, so that the facilitated communication user has the option of resuming that conversation the next time.

2. The space for communication may need to be protected from interruptions by other students or clients. More importantly, the conversation should be protected from phone calls or intrusions from other people in power. By refusing to take an intruding phone call or engage in an interrupting conversation, we convey to the facilitated communication user the importance to us of what he or she has to say.

3. At the beginning of most conversations between people who are not equals, the more powerful person knows and controls the agenda. In order to move toward reciprocity, then, it helps for the facilitator to find out what the facilitated communication user wants to have on the agenda. (This topic doesn't always need to be discussed first or exclusively, but time needs to be set aside for the discussion.)

4. In many unequal conversations, the person in power asks all the questions. I have seen many facilitated communication interactions that resemble inquisitions or cross- examinations more than conversations.
   • In moving toward reciprocity, you should find out what the facilitated communication user wants to learn about you -- your interests, relationships, goals, challenges, etc. Time that you as a facilitator spend talking about yourself in response to requests from the facilitated communication user is not wasted, since it is a major factor in establishing reciprocity and solidarity.

   • If these things seem too personal for you to talk about, examine whether you are asking the same kinds of personal questions of the facilitated communication user. If so, why?

5. Think about who typically controls whether to stay on or leave a topic. There are times, of course, when teachers, staffpersons or parents have a specific issue which must be discussed with the facilitated communication user. However, if attempts by the facilitated communication user to change the subject or to talk about a "more interesting" topic are usually or always met by redirection, than a relationship of dependency is probably being fostered.

6. Related to the previous point, the facilitator must examine whether he or she is showing much more interest in some topics rather than others.

   A man once refused to type with me for several weeks; he finally typed out with another facilitator, "Mayer always wants me to talk about profound things." I had shown great interest in poetry he had typed -- but the truth is, he didn't always want to write poetry! It was only after assuring him that I was interested in talking about anything that was on his agenda that he agreed to return to typing with me.

7. An empowering facilitator is always working to expand the facilitated communication user's circle of communication partners.
   • Part of this expansion involves committing time and energy to the training of new facilitators and to discussing with the facili- tated communication user the challenges that are arising in communicating with the new persons.

   • Part of the expansion involves understanding the importance of the existing relationship between the experienced facilitator and the facilitated communication user. The facilitator must make sure that that existing relationship is not seen as being threatened by the individual's acquiring new facilitators.

8. Confidentiality is also an important factor in establishing reciprocity. In unequal relationships, the person in power has control over who finds out about what has been said or typed. If we are serious about wishing to empower facilitated communication users, then making sure they maintain control over who sees or hears their words is vital.
   • The facilitated communication user must maintain control over what happens to any typed product.

   • A signal for private conversation should be agreed on in advance, so that the facilitated communication user can request privacy before a statement is made.

REFERENCES

• Lovett, H. (1985). Cognitive counseling and persons with special needs. New York: Praeger.
• McGee, J.J., Menolascino, F.J., Hobbs, D.C., & Menousek, P.E. (1987). Gentle teaching: A non-aversive approach to helping persons with mental retardation. New York: Human Sciences Press.