There seems to be a difference between 'having support' and 'having support that enables the person to act'

"If you rely too much on visual support, you won't be able to act on your own."

When I was told that, I couldn't find a way to respond.
However, a sense of discomfort remained, as if I hadn't quite been able to accept it.

That discomfort didn't disappear on the spot,
but gradually took shape over time.


Could you please try to imagine a scene for a moment?


Suppose you are walking in an unfamiliar land without a map.
You don't know where to turn or how much longer it will take.

You feel anxious and stop walking repeatedly.
You take a few steps, stop, and look around again.

What if you were handed a map in that situation?

You would finally be able to start walking.
Without getting lost, you would stop less often and be able to move toward your destination.

I suspect that few people would feel that you are "dependent on the map" when seeing this.

That is because a map is a "tool for walking."


Now, please try to imagine another scene.

Suppose you are in a foreign country and someone is speaking to you in a language you don't understand.
They are trying their best to explain something, but you don't know what is being said.

The people around you think they are "explaining it properly."
But it isn't reaching you.

You feel anxious and don't know how to act.



What if it were conveyed in a language you understood?

The meaning would finally connect,
and you would be able to feel at ease and act on the spot.



Whether it is being conveyed in a "form" that reaches the person.
That does not necessarily have to be words.


It is not about "whether you are conveying it,"
but I believe the perspective of "whether it is reaching them" is necessary.



Visual support might be the same.




I have been in situations many times where I was told, "We are providing support."


In fact, there was support.
Schedules were on the school blackboard,
and they were also displayed on a whiteboard at the day service center. I myself have created schedules in the same way.

However, I often felt that it was not what the person needed.

It existed, but it wasn't being used.
Even though it should have been visible,
it didn't lead to action.

That discomfort led me to think.



Without knowing what to do,
time just passes according to the schedule.
Even though the information should be visible,
they are unable to act.

Only that troubled state remained.
At that time, there was something that had been weighing on my mind for a long time.

The idea that "having visual support" and
"having visual support that is necessary for the person"
might not be the same thing.



Visual support used by supporters to "make things easier to convey" and
visual support arranged for the person to "act with peace of mind"
have different meanings, even if they look similar.

The former is a technique for conveying information.
The latter is an environment for taking action.

What my son needed was the latter.



I realized this
when my son stopped going to school.

Because he couldn't go to school,
we were able to have time to talk slowly for the first time.

What is he afraid of?
When does he have trouble?
What would make him feel a little more at ease?

We carefully put everything into words, one by one.



What became clear through that process
was the need for a "schedule he could check himself."

What is coming up next?
How long will it take to finish?

Being able to check that at his own timing.



When we incorporated that,
I saw a change in my son.



He became able to act calmly,
and the number of times he stopped decreased.


The support side also felt that change.


We finally reached a state where we could feel that "the support is functioning."



It is not just my son and others like him.
I have felt the same thing while watching family members who have specific traits even without intellectual disabilities.

If there is information they can understand that makes them feel safe, they can act.
If not, no matter how well-organized the support is, they cannot act.
I have realized over a long time that this is the basic sequence for how people act, regardless of the severity of their disability.

People can only act once they feel safe.
Only after having the experience of being able to act does it lead to confidence. And as confidence grows, they move on to the next step.
This sequence could not be skipped.




When I hear the words "if you rely too much, you won't be able to act," perhaps it is because this sequence is missing.



The problem is not whether it is "dependence,"
but whether that support
is designed for the person to act, isn't it?



And there is one more thing I feel.
Support is not something whose goal is to be removed.

Experiences of being able to act with peace of mind accumulate,
and as a result, it becomes unnecessary.



If we stop and think together about what to remove and how, perhaps things will go well for both sides.



Because there is a map, you can walk.
Because there are words you understand, you can act.
Because you have the experience of having walked,
you can move on to the next path.


Isn't visual support surely in the same position?