Brief and narrative Therapy - Journal 4

          This post will conclude my thoughts on the "In Search of Solutions" book I have been reading for my Brief and Narrative Therapy class.  I'm trying to refrain from making this a full on literature review comprised of comparing likes vs dislike.  However, these posts also serve as notes and reference points for myself.  So, for this series (an probably more) I'll continue in the same fashion.

Likes:

• The authors make reference to changing the doing / viewing of the client.  I have some philosophically oriented concerns about this process, but in the vein of being "solution-focused" it is a very apt standpoint.
• The authors then elaborate to change the frequency, timing, duration, location, and sequence of the problem at hand.  I think that this is very constructive for the client's grasp of progress or control.  I would think that it would help them to feel that they can be proactive in their situation and that progress, or at least some sort of change, can be made to alter the circumstances.  This goes right along with the authors' later mention of adding new elements to the situation and attempting to break the complaint pattern.
• Therapists should evoke resources and strengths.  This is a good point to make.  The authors mention later that clients like to discuss their accomplishments.  This is not limited to the therapy room.  It doesn't make you a narcissist to enjoy telling people about your successes; it feels good to share our joys with others.  You might even say that it is "therapeutic."  Furthermore, linking performances together (as suggested in the book) can help to reinforce that sense of morale in the client to keep chipping away and making changes / progress.
• No therapy is inherently useful or not useful, it is only valuable if it works.  This may seem cold depending on how you define "works", but there is some resonance here.  Whether it is your therapy method or the client's attempts as resolution, if something is not working, there comes a time when you must realize that you're banging your head against a wall when you could perhaps just open the door.
• Sometimes the problem is that therapists fail; A) to have a clear view of the client's goals, B) to notice the client agreeing or disagreeing.  I feel that this is pretty darn important.  In the manner of being solution-based, who's solutions are you working for?  It is important to recognize a client's agree/disagreeability and adapt your therapeutic measures accordingly.  
• There is no neutrality.  I absolutely agree here.  Life is not stagnant.  Even if you are "stuck in a rut", the world keeps moving.  The only way to be neutral is through either ignorance or apathy.  One is truly tragic and the other shamefully passionless.
• Therapy is not meant to be a panacea for all of life's problems.  This statement is kind of ironic given that the title of the book is "In Search of Solutions."  However, I agree.  Therapy, in my opinion, should evoke something captivating within the client, at times it is soothing, and at other it is abrasive.  We all have bad days, you probably don't need therapy for each individual "bad day."  BUT the human mind can only take so much psychological "wear and tear" before it breaks; and thus therapy enters.  It is also important to be able to foresee the breaking point and perhaps enter therapy preemptively.  Sometimes a court, a spouse, or other external source will tell you that you need therapy.  However, when the veil is torn and we are truly, in the most frightening sense, in touch with ourselves and hit the bottom (sometimes it has to be pretty **** hard) we will know that we can not continue alone.

Issues:

• People don't inherently have problems.  Our judgments of life's events dictate whether we see things as bumps or mountains.  - This is clearly a glass half-full or half-empty argument.  It's garbage.  Perception is very important, indeed.  However, sometimes life just sucks.  Problems are REAL.  I don't know about the authors, but I have no idea how I could stomach telling a rape victim that s/he doesn't really have a problem, they're only looking at it in a pessimistic view.  Frankly, I wouldn't blame them for punching me in the face (or worse) for saying something like that.  Or take for example the survivors of Katrina or Sandy.  They don't have "problems" huh?  As the survivor of a natural disaster how they feel immediately after; probably thankful they're alive and perhaps their family and friends survived as well.  Ask them a week or a month later how it feels to live on bottled water and canned soup, have no job, no house, no car, no money, no where to go, and still be expected to "get better", "be okay", stop "mooching the system", and be "productive members of society again."
• The authors contradict themselves really severely on one account.  The state on page 137 that "clients know exactly what they need to do", yet, on page 188 one of the authors states that she is preemptively planning on working towards keeping marriages together.  I thought we were supposed to be working on what the clients wanted?  Who are you to say that the appropriate solution would be for the marriage (in this example) should stick together?  If the client is ambivalent, uncertain, or has mixed feelings, why do you get to decide for them what they really want?
• Lastly, this is not really a debate, but more or less some ambivalence of my own.  The authors say that they don't worry about setbacks and relapses, but about self-fulfilling prophecies.  Initially I wanted to agree with this statement for its long-term focus and concentration on long-term achievements rather than iatrogenic destruction.  However, take for example the person showing signs of suicidality.  There is a urban legend floating around that you should not ask the person if they want to kill themselves because that will "put that in their head" or "give then an idea."  Well, news flash... if someone is that depressed that you are concerned for their life; they have almost certainly thought about taking it themselves.  

Overall Thoughts on the Book:

          In general I think that I liked the book.  There were a lot of insightful tidbits that I think will be very useful throughout my career.  There were also plenty of theoretical assumptions that I would readily jump on board with given the context of a particular client.  This book gave me quite a few "tools" to keep in my back pocket or on a book shelf for reference.

          However, in spite of the quantity of "good" things I found in the book, I had some very adamant and outraged concerns and objections.  Some of them I would deem "unforgivable."  So, I guess my rendered verdict is the book is great for adding to a therapists "toolkit", but on a theoretical basis (for me personally) some parts make me sick.  Nonetheless I will not let my philosophical preferences and objections detract that usability and resourcefulness of the methods found in this book.

Follow me on Twitter @Savaged_Zen