by Paul ten Have©, University of Amsterdam.
"Counselling" typically refers to situations in which two parties, one the expert and the other the client, confidentially discuss the latter's problems in life. The expert is supposed to use "scientific knowledge" and "professional experience" in helping the client to formulate his problems and find solutions to them. Often the client's subjective experience and evaluation of his situation and options is the main issue although his material circumstances and available information may also be discussed.
"Radio counselling" is the term I use for a genre in which counselling-like telephone conversations are broadcast as part of a radio program. Such conversations are a regular feature in a weekly radio-program broadcast in the Netherlands since the beginning of 1976. In this program people who have called the studio discuss their problems with the program's host, knowing full well that they are "on". The host herself is not an expert, though she is assisted by some professionals.
This paper gives a general description of the program and raises some broad points concerning these conversations and the problems they are intended to deal with. The paper is based on inspection of a collection of tape-recordings made of about 30 shows, and on a long interview with the program's host.
The callers (the number to be called is given shortly after eight) first talk with a member of a team of nine social workers and graduate students (in clinical psychology). They are asked to describe their problem in a few words, and also to indicate whether they are willing to talk about it "on the air". If so, they have to give their phone number to be called back eventually. At about 10 olelock two producers select who will be called to participatie. They look for cases that could make for an interesting discussion of a problem that is, at the same time, commonplace enough to allow an identification on the part of the listeners. Some problems considered too personal or too shoeking are excluded (e.g. suicide, sado-masochism, sex with children or animals). About three or four conversations are broadcast on one night. While the program goes on, the team at the telephones is active collecting reactions to the conversations, people with comparable problems, etc. The two most experienced members are at hand to help with particularly difficult problems, either from the broadcast conversations or from the other callers. Listeners are invited to give their opinions, suggestions, etc. either by phone or in writing to the studio.
The programming organization is the VPRO, one of the several "broadcasting associations" which are given a share of broadcasting time on the four radio- and the two television-stations which are state-owned. The VPRO is one of the smallest of these. It was set up in the twenties by liberal-protestant groups, but it was more or less "taken over" by people with a non-religious, non-conformist and undogmatic leftish outlook in the sixties. Its programs are favoured by younger, well-educated, and non-conformist people and very much disliked by older conservatives. Its recent history was dominated by "scandals" about certain "taboo-breaking" programs. In general, these drive at a more relativistic conception vis-á-vis all kinds of social, political, artistic and moral conventions. The tone is light, never taking things too seriously.
The general idea of the Friday night program is to stimulatie and help people to be more self-supporting in finding solutions to their life problems and to be less dependant on conventions and authorities. To this end, it tries to teach people by example and to stimulatie them to talk about their problems, recognize the general ("structural") features in them, and find the solutions that fit thetr own experienee and feelings best. Therefore, it attempts to present things in a simple and straight- forward manner, not "talking over peoples heads", avoiding pedantic words and imposed solutions.
The conversations generally begin with the host stating her name. At that moment the caller can infer he is talking to Germaine herself and that he is "on". Most callers preserve a eertain anonymity by stating only their first name and avoiding for the time being further identifications, except within the context of their problem-statement. Sometimes "pre-topic sequences" are used stating preliminary conditions or considerations and sometime the host talks about a bad connection or asks for an explanation of background noise. Most calls, however, go right to the topie with something like: 'I have a problem", "OK, go ahead and tell it".
The presentation of the problem usually begins with a short statement or story. The host supports the caller continuously with "yesses" and asks small clarifying questions. Next she asks the caller to elaborate on his problem, give a short history, and the like. She may also ask what the caller himself has already done, or failed to do about the problem, what significant others know and think about it, what kind of assistance he has sought until now, etc. One also hears supportive statements of the kind: "Yeah, you must have had a terrible time".
At a eertain moment Germaine states a first opninion or advice. The caller may accept or refuse it, he may ask for a clarification or react in a "yes, but .." manner. Often some negotiation ensues, the host "offering" solutions and the caller "rejecting" more or less openly until he is offered something to his liking or is put off with a "sold out". The justifications of rejection are of many kinds (for example: "I have tried that already, it did not work", "I wouldn't dare, my father would throw me out", "I don't like that", etc.) and these justifications further clarify the problem as a dead-lock situation. One can interpret the conversations as a discussion between two parties, the one maintaining that "there is no way out of this problem" and the other trying to find a reasonable way out just the same. Interwoven with this discussion callers give further clarifications, express their suffering and other emotions and reiterate aspects of the problem.
The host proposes alternatives of several kinds, like alternative opinions and interpretations ("why don't you see it this way?"), alternatives of action ("Why don't you try this?") and - especially - alternatives of talking partners and talking styles. In most conversations the host tries to find out if the caller could not discuss his problems with a sympathatic person he knows, someone he might trust and have a good (non-moralizing, supportive) talk with. She more or less systematically makes the round of partners, parents and friends and if the caller doesn't reject a potential talking-partner she encourages him to try to talk things over with this person. The host urges callers to talk openly and honestly with their partners. In regard to talking with parents she is less insistent on talking since she knows many parents do not respect their children's feelings and problems. Apart from partner and parents she just asks: "Do you know anyone you can really trust?".
In many cases talking with intimates is the prefered solution. In a way this is paradox which callers often formulate: if they had someone to talk things over with, they wouldnlt have called: "I have no one to talk to, that's why I called you". The host usually insists that they try talking to others anyhow. For some problems and in some cases the advice to talk things over is elearly insufficient. For example, if sexual problems appear to persist in spite of the partners' attempts to discuss them, she suggests professional counselling ("Can you talk with your GP? If so, try that, if not, call your local counselling centre set up by the sexual liberation movement. Make an appointment to go there with your partner."). Especially those institutions are recommended that have an "egalitarian" style, working to achieve a relation of trust and stressing client's possibilities to help himself.
Sometimes a problem is considered so urgent and/or personal that the caller is put in connection with one of the experienced social workers present in the studio (but not on the air, backstage). They are able to go deeper into the case, to discuss "non-broadcastable" details and - if need be - to arrange for further help, to contact institutions, etc.
Sometimes the host's suggestions appear truely novel and promising to the caller, something he didn't know about before or something he had never considered. In that case, he begins to sound happy and promises to try the advice as soon as he can. More often, callers are less optimistic: they have tried this or that already, or they lack the courage to try it, or they don't feel it would be of any help, or they believe it will not work anyway. Sometimes callers have tried "everything" and see no successful way out. In these cases the host just repeats the most promising alternative.
Once this "negotiation" results in some kind of acceptance of a proposal,., or, if the host confesses she doesn't know what to say anymore, or if the conversation is referred to one of the social workers in the studio, the present conversation can be closed as described by Sacks & Schegloff (1973): a summing up of what went before, "thank you", "OK", "bye, bye", or slight variations thereof. Many callers are invited to call again, let the host know what happened, etc.
Given the fact that closing mostly follows immediately upon an acceptance,
I presume that any advise by the host cau be - on acceptance - a possible
closing point. So negotiations about solutions are also negotiationg about
the length of the conversation (gaining attention, "air time", etc.). This
system implies that the caller should initiate elosing sequenees by indicating
his satisfaction. Only when this system produces an endless conversation,
repeating the problem without any sign of satisfaction, the host abandones
it and enforces a closing. Such a "confrontation" is mostly avoided. Callers
play their game in quite a subtle manner, indicating satisfaction or lack
of it by the tone of their voice of "carefully designed" yes, but ... answers.
Many callers come up with complicating details when alternatives are suggestedi
bringing in reasons for the impasse. These complications have the effect
of lengthening the conversation and may be applied with that purpose. This
aspect is not explicitly discussed in the conversations themselves. lt
is noteworthy that a notorious move from GP's consulting rooms, "By the
way, doctor, ...", followed by a second problem (Byrne & Long, 1976:
20, 28), is almost completely absent here. Callers do not bring in really
new problems to lengthen their talks. Thus the general understanding seems
to be that these are one-topic- calls.