Framework, purpose and transgression

When the framework of a project becomes inadequate, transgressing it often allows for better achievement of the objectives by prioritizing lived experience over expected outcomes.

When transgression can become essential

When embarking on a project—whether cultural, therapeutic, or social—we set objectives and establish a framework to achieve them. Let’s take an example:

• The objectives may be therapeutic, such as helping people with disabilities build self-confidence to support their job search.
• The framework for achieving these objectives could be creating a video CV, with several steps (creativity, mastering speech, self-confidence within the group, etc.).

But if, during the project, we realize that the framework—the creation of a video CV—is no longer suited to the objectives because the participants are not progressing as quickly as initially anticipated, then staying true to the objectives means being able to adapt the framework and accepting that the outcome will differ from what was planned. We must transgress the initial framework to evolve it, ensuring we stay aligned with the core goals.

How to make this understood?

This kind of change is not easy to grasp from the outside. To legitimize it, we must be able to narrate it, as external stakeholders—those not involved in the project’s process—may have expected a specific result. They might feel deeply disappointed or even believe that the absence of the “expected outcome” harms the participants themselves, who didn’t achieve what was initially intended. I believe it’s always essential to return to the fundamental objectives, which are often about the journey, the experience.

If we take John Dewey’s Art as Experience, for example, art is the lived experience. If the artistic object, the material production, differs from what was initially planned—but the experience was deeply engaging and constructive—then the final outcome being different is actually a great opportunity. In other words, transgressing the framework is often the best way to achieve a project’s objectives if it becomes clear along the way that those objectives are no longer tenable or require a different path than originally envisioned. I’d even argue that this is one of the essential methodological keys to successful projects.

Sharing the living framework

I’m not saying we shouldn’t “push” participants to meet the initial objectives, as this can also foster motivation. But sometimes this push becomes external to their personal journey, their own desires, and they end up as puppets controlled by us, the facilitators. In that case, the result may be rewarding for the institution, but it won’t represent as profound a personal enrichment for the participants—meaning the true objectives will not have been fulfilled.

However, to do this effectively, we must identify this shift with the participants themselves, articulating together that we’ve adjusted the framework for good reasons and that this change belongs even more fully to them.