Joint responsibility as an attitude of mind (working alongside) a letter by David Wills in the PETT archives

The purpose of this paper is to present a previously unpublished letter from children’s therapeutic community pioneer David Wills to his younger colleague in the field, Robert Laslett, which attempts to define and summarise a lifetime’s understanding of the essence of a therapeutic environment. This raises concepts and issues of relevance to current theory and practice in therapeutic environments.

The authors contextualise the 1977 letter from David Wills before presenting it verbatim, with clarifying annotations relating to people and events. They then analyse and discuss the fundamental arguments presented in the letter, with relevance to current thinking and practice.

The approach presented by David Wills to his younger colleague is deeply challenging to current concepts and understandings of therapeutic environments and the role in the therapeutic task of subjectivity and “attitude of mind”. The view is taken that this presents “a great question for wide debate, right now”.

Very little historical/analytical research has taken place into the experiences, thinking and practice of those who have built the diverse fields of therapeutic communities and environments, not least because history disturbs and challenges the present. This paper opens a small window on the vast resources which are available, and indicates something of the rich potential for debate and practical challenge Experts by Experience pose to living and, hopefully, learning practitioners to day.

Questions are raised: the debate they engender should eventuate into clearer, better grounded, more radical, and more effective practice.

This letter challenges assumptions about the role and nature of the “therapeutic attitude” and the place of subjectivity, with profound implications for the therapeutic enterprise itself, and the organisation of therapeutic environments, as well as policy, assessment and regulation regimes.

The use of previously unpublished archive material opens living questions to examination from a different perspective, widening the debate to include voices of expertise and experience which are generally, consciously or unconsciously, excluded from it. Presenting the letter in its whole, and not excerpted as supporting evidence, allows the voice of expertise by experience to contribute directly to discussion and debate; unbalancing and enriching it.