Brief and Narrative Therapy - Journal 3

          Firstly, I have to make a correction.  I started reading the wrong book for this course and so I had a little ground to make up.  The book I was supposed to read and should have written about last week is "In Search of Solution" by Hanlon and Weiner-Davis.  So I've made up for lost time and I'm about 2/3 of the way through this book and here is what I have to say....

           In general I am liking the book.  There are several things being pointed out from a technical or strategic standpoint that I'm really enjoying.  However, there are some pretty glaring theoretical vacancies that rub me the wrong way.

Likes:

• I like the distinction that the authors make between past- , present- , and future-oriented therapies.   (for my other thoughts on this, please read my latest blog on Psychological Suffering)
• I like that the book mentions that symptoms serve functions.  Be it physiological or psychological, symptoms represent and mean something.  They are observable cues to the sometimes unseen.
• The authors also mention that therapists often think that they know what the "real" problem is; conversely the authors suggest that the statement of "the problem is _____" should come from the client, not the therapist.
• The authors state that the therapist's job is to access tools within the client in order to amplify change.  I think that is pretty accurate.  I once thought that the goal of therapy was to alleviate suffering.  I do not think I would agree with that statement any longer.  I would say that the goal is much closer to evoking something provocative   In my personal experience I have tried to "direct" my clients towards find answers / meanings / solutions through their own reflections with very little input from myself.
• The Miracle Question - "What would a day be like if you woke up and your problems were gone?  What would a perfect day be like?"  This is a very powerful question in finding out what a client's goals are and what is bothering them (what the problem is).
• The Exception Question - "What are you not doing now that could make that day possible?" - or - "What are you doing now that is stopping that perfect day from happening?"  As per the solution-based orientation of this book, this question seems fitting.  But it has a very matter-of-fact ontological stance about it; which I like.  Sooner or later life is gonna kick your ***, but what are you going to do about it?
• In order to establish an effective rapport with the client, the therapist should take note of the client's "pet phrases" and use "their language" to communicate with them.
• The authors also make the distinction, and I think it is an important one, between thinking, feeling, and doing.  The example in the book is of suicide.  Certainly there is a tremendous difference between thinking about killing yourself, feeling like it, and actually doing it.  A community college psychology professor once said something that has stuck with me; "Don't believe everything you think."
• In relation to the two questions above (Miracle and Exception), the authors state that the therapist should help the clients assess what is different when things are successful.  Certainly, even the harshest times have their sunny days.  What is different on those days can, perhaps, be replicated to increase their frequency, or at least the potential for a more common occurrence.

and now for the  - Dislikes:

• The authors are adamant about a future-oriented therapy   They criticize that past and present oriented therapies.  However, it is a fact that nothing happens inside a vacuum... everything is contextual.
• The authors also make mention of The Myth of Sisyphus.  Unfortunately for them, I am an avid Camus reader.  I'm afraid they miss the entire point of the story.  Whether this was done out of ignorance or intentional omission; it irritates me.  Who says the therapist is helping the client push the proverbial rock?  Perhaps the therapist is only whispering and watching; facilitating accelerants of both motivation and revelation of deficit   Regardless of the therapist's role, "We must imagine Sisyphus happy."
• I was accused by my classmates of being too literal, but there is a fundamental error in the authors' statement that "change is constant."  First of all it, by definition, is not.  They also state that "change is inevitable", which is better.  But these two statements are NOT the same.  It would be much more accurate to say that "the only constant is change."  There are also different types of change statistically speaking.  Geographical change occurs at a constant rate (e.g. a straight line on a graph).  Exponential change occurs in a curve.  Changes in life are NOT constant.  They accelerate and decelerate, go up and down, at varying degrees, lengths, and intensities.  Regardless of the authors' intent, the word choice was poor.
• The authors also talk about normalizing and depathologizing the client's problems.  Generally this is a good thing.  However, the way it is presented is in dangerous fashion.  When a client is always receiving confirming statements from the therapist, it is expected that the therapist will reinforce and agree with the client.  Constantly agreeing with the client is a form of side-choosing that can be very detrimental to the "search for solution."

Follow me on Twitter @Savaged_Zen