The Fundamental Violence concept

From Paul Fustier, Éditions Dunod, Collection Action Sociale, « Le travail d’équipe en institution – Clinique de l’institution médico-sociale et psychiatrie » Chap. 7, 2015, 224 p., ISBN :9782100716425.

I – Fundamental violence concept

The aim of this chapter is to show team phenomena, consequences of violence perceived by the institution, through the example of a social home in the South of France.

From Jean Bergeret concept of Fundamental violence (2014), the object is to show how the institution involves operation rules. Rules that can even be violent to staff and users of this same institution.

First, we have to distinguish aggressiveness from fundamental violence, depending who is targeted : aggressiveness is targeting an identified person to attack his integrity with a destruction purpose. For fundamental violence, the targeted person is only secondary. The reason of this violence is mainly to preserve the attacker from self destruction.

Fundamental violence is an act of reaction where receiver doesn’t have much importance, in order to protect himself. Though, staff of the institution will suffer from this behavior.

Reactive violence 

Fundamental violence can bring a feeling of withdrawal to the ones who think they are the receiver of it, even violence sometimes, despite the fact of being forbidden in care institutions. This behavior of self preservation tend to set aside staff teams from their main duty of health and care.
If first, survival feelings take off, then satisfaction to have survived his working day take over satisfaction to have reach their mission.
Despite of these dysfunctions, they doesn’t paralyze the institution still.

Task changing according to rules 

When the staff is feeling threatened, care procedures are at risk to not be organized as they should and finally be ruled by survival techniques provided by professionals.

Task changing operate by authority given by 2 types of settlements in the institution.
We have “Type 1” about institution missions (fundamental rules, general principles) et rules of “Type 2” related to staff protection (specific foundations of the organization against violence)

Depending on team exposure to fundamental violence, we notice a “pendulum oscillation” between both settlements : when the team isn’t in exposure to violence, rules of type 1 are discussed, but in case of manifestation of violence, rules of type 2 are in center of debates.

II – An example of paradoxical situation with both types of settlements against violence 

Context at the beginning… 

The situation is about the transgression of a rule by an occupant of the group home institution, Mr Janvier, who brought alcohol into the home.
Transgression itself bring a feeling of insecurity for the team, but in this case, Mr Janvier appears to not be violent and tend to control his alcohol consumption.

There’s a feeling of confusion for team members as rules of type 2 should be applied but seems inappropriate with this person.

Result : 

There’s a “paradoxical loop”in team debates:

1st : We have to dismiss Mr Janvier as rules T1 provides in case of settlement transgression.
2nd : Mr Janvier is well behaved and manage well his alcohol consumption, so team has to accept the idea that he can enjoy a relaxing moment like any reasonable person.
3rd : Dilemma about the institution that doesn’t respect rules T1 determined by themselves, and has the duty to apply the settlement.
4th : Yes, but apply this settlement doesn’t seems suitable for Mr Janvier who isn’t violent and can have a reasonable alcohol consumption.

We have here a debate between both types of regulation. Institution is trapped in its paradoxical reflexion. Feeling of danger activate T2 rules, in contradiction with T1 rules, because there’s a confusion between theoric group where mr Janvier belongs (social home users and potentially violent persons) and people that are part of this group, that can be non violent (like Mr Janvier)

Consequence : “combined grouping” 

To face potential dangerous residents, the team has to be solidary and work together to protect themselves and other users. The group is getting together to reassure their protection but lose the main reason and objectives of their initial duty. We call it “reasoning overall”

An eventual help : psychology elaboration 

Initial state of team :
We have here a combined grouping of the team against violence. Team beliefs are built up by violent residents fantasy.

Perspective of amelioration :
It is possible to bring back “humanity” to the violent personn, that become in the case the object of fantasy. To work on what violence received brings within.
Our own violence is activated, and with a lack of expression, would transform into action.

It is then important to work on the risk of reprisals : in one hand it would be an answer to a fantasized violence and on another hand, will bring the violence instigator to face himself, like a mirror effect, not as if it was an exterior object, like said Winicott.4
Is it possible to bring a sense to auto-conservation behaviors, and become aware, makes “permanence” possible (so the non destruction of the team and the users)

Goal :
If the individual resist to violence, and accept it without being destroyed, he will survive as a person or as an external object and a connection will be possible with the violent person. It won’t be the story of whom will survive and violence will shape as an affirmation of oneself.

The non destruction of care staff 

In conclusion,
To “hold” in a caring process has a positive issue for care itself.
Knowing self-conservation phenomenons helps to bear in mind the non-destruction of it, conscience that will impact on efficiency and caring relation. If caring staff understand they can face violence without reprisals, they will be able to position as external object, re-establish links differently, and maybe adopt professional behavior as in Type 1 settlement.