Tulsa, Oklahoma, June 27, 1991. Generating possibilities through therapeutic conversations. Beginning of the conference.

Italics and non-bold– when I, Linda Moxley-Haegert, am making a comment.

I have purposely left in Michael’s jokes and humour as well as introductions so that those of you who have never met Michael might get to know him better. He did not tell his surely joke which I heard in nearly every workshop with Michael. I may have to tell you that one.

Narrative Therapy terms are in bold.

Michael’s direct questions are in bold and italics.

Introduction– Gail: She talks of the story of how Michael and his work came into her life, through the grace of Karl Tomm – It took about a year and a half to get Karl to come and he was to come to discuss the Milan model. He was also to talk of circular questioning. She said, ‘We had it all set up, 250 people coming, Karl arrived very late, he did not arrive until about 12 or 1 in the night’. I met Karl in the morning for breakfast. He asked permission to change the entire workshop, he had just come back from Adelaide and fell in love with the ideas of Michael White and found him to be the kind of person whose ideas should be talked about in North America– Thus the Tulsa audience was first introduced to Michael Whites ideas, Karl Tomm did an incredible presentation. I called Michael that evening and asked if he would be willing to come to the United States and come to speak to us. He and Karl came up about three months later. I thought that would be fun story to share with you. I would appreciate it if you would turn to your neighbor and tell your neighbor about what you know about Michael. He has fun in life and fun in therapy, Cheryl gave him a metaphorical briefcase to carry around in his work, it came from a spirit of fun and not that he has a shared ideology with our president. (Laughter I think you would have to be an American to get that joke.)

Michael: Gail is an adopted member of our family.

Michael: Karl will have some discussion after I speak. I think we can get some reflections from Karl. I am very interested in his work and he in my work.

I want to present some stories about therapy because first and foremost my concern is related to what happens in the therapeutic context. Because of the time constraints these stories do not adequately represent the ups and downs of therapy, so there is a simplicity in these stories that is not represented in the work itself. OK

The first story is about Elizabeth.

I will tell several stories and then talk of the ideas, I also have a video tape. This will introduce you to my latest consultant is a young man of 5 years of age who has just resolved an eating problem. I might discuss that process, I think you may have heard about David Epston’s ideas of consulting the consultant. I don’t know if you are aware of David Epston’s work but he often at a particular point in therapy engages in the people who work with him as consultants. They become consultants of their own

1

problem and of their ability to help themselves with their problem. He formally interviews these persons about their own special knowledges and ask them how this knowledge can be made available to others with similar problems. So I will introduce you to my latest consultant, not my most senior consultant but a consultant none-the-less.

Story of Elizabeth:

Now, Elizabeth is a single parent, she had two daughters. She has been experiencing abuse from the 15 year old and both she and her daughters are unhappy. These problems have been upsetting Elizabeth for some time. She wanted her daughters to come with her but they refused to accompany her. She was feeling that she might not recover from the despair she has been experiencing. She had begun to experience something like hate for these children and was considering fostering out the children but could not do it. This distressed her even more that she could experience hate.

Michael’s questions and Elizabeth’s responses: I asked how these problems were affecting the lives of those around her and how were they interfering with the relationship with her daughters. I asked more specifically about how these problems were affecting herself, her views of herself as a parent and as a mother. What did she believe these problems affected her as a parent? What conclusions had she come to as a result of this problem?

Elizabeth’s conclusions. She said she was a failure as a mother.

Michael: I began to understand the private story that she had been living by. I began to understand her views. I asked her about her view of herself that she was a failure. What was this view compelling her in relationship to her children? What was this feeling dictating to her?

Elizabeth gave details of guilt. She felt she was a failure in giving her daughters the kind of family that she needed for them. That was the idea of a nuclear family with two parents in the family. This was making her tenuous, she felt bound to submit herself to the evaluation of her children on her.

Michael: We can see that this view that she was a failure was very compelling. I asked her whether the effects of this were OK with her.

Michael: I asked her: “Is this view and its effects acceptable to you, this terrorizing guilt, are you comfortable with this? Is the havoc that this view is doing acceptable to you?

Elizabeth’s responses: the current status of her relationship with her children was untenable. She stated that it was time to deal with this.

Michael: I asked how she was recruited into this view, how was she actually recruited into this view that she was a failure, what were the mechanisms of this guilt, what experiences had been most influential that she was recruited into this view, did she think that woman were more vulnerable to being recruited to this view or men. It brought forth more significant experiences which were involved in the recruitment.

2

Elizabeth felt that women are more likely to be recruited to this view. She talked about her experience as a recipient of abuse at the hands of her former husband.

Michael’s comments: There is a gender specific nature of this construction. There is a prevalence of mother blaming of our culture. As we explored the specifics of the experiences she had had and details of how she was recruited into this view, Elizabeth began to experience in herself an identity that was distinct in relationship to this view. At first she spoke of the identity she gave herself, she was at one with the idea of herself as a failure, (mother blaming identity, guilt feeling identity) but these other understandings allowed her to feel that this was not her identity. This cleared the way for us to distinguish some areas of her life that had not been corrupted by this view. We know that these ideas are not totalizing, there are many contradictions to this view that Elizabeth was a failure that came with the externalizing of the problem. She was able to move into a space separate from that story of her life. I partly facilitated the identification of these distinctions by giving her ideas of how other women with whom I have talk – the various ways these views had terrorized their lives. The ways they were recruited. She had a list of experiences where she could have had the view that she was a failure and that she had resisted. We found three of four ways in which she managed to resist this tyranny – when she did not cooperate with the ideas of failures. This encouraged her to find meanings with these unique outcomes – that seemed to reflect a refusal to cooperate with these views, to challenge the tyranny of guilt. We found this evidence when this had not dominated her live. She was able to situate these unique outcomes within her life.

Michael’s questions: I asked her questions like: How did you manage to resist this feeling of failure and reclaim this piece of your own life for yourself? How did you manage to reclaim this piece? I encouraged her to plot this recent outcome not just in recent history but distant history. One of the things I said, Elizabeth, who do you know who would be least surprised with this news that you could resist tyranny?

Elizabeth’s response: She talked of a neighbor who she hadn’t seen for several years. She was at that time living with her husband, who was very controlling and abusive. She had gone to this neighbours place on a Saturday afternoon. Her husband was into control, he would send the children to get her to come home. Mavis (the neighbour – Michael always wanted to find a name even when the person had forgotten the name) said:–“I will lose respect for you if you succumb to this abuse”. Elizabeth stayed for 2 hours more. It was the first step of undermining this control of her. I asked her: What did Mavis see in you that would not make her surprised that you were able to resist this abuse? How did you manage to undermine your husband’s control, what did Mavis see?

Michael’s comments: We are getting into the antecedents. You see there is one story of her as a victim and this alternative history of her as a survivor and we begin to get another story. It was a history of protest and resistance.

Michael’s questions: I also asked: What would Mavis think was your desire, your wishes for your life? What did she construe as your intentions and purposes?

3

Michael’s comments: This is a revision of motives and desires, so we can say that Elizabeth was starting to re-story her life through the landscape of action questions and landscape of consciousness questions. These alternatives and preferred versions came out of the shadows and she was more able to think of changes in her current life. I discussed about her seizing the initiative to circulate this alternative knowledge. As she began to understand these former knowledges and alternative knowledges, I began thinking of how she could spread the knowledges. 50% of this work is spreading these knowledges. To identify and recruit an audience is very helpful in helping this story go forward. We asked about who might be an appropriate audience – how could she introduce these discoveries to others. About how she could invite them to respond. This is part of this exploration. –

More questions: What was it about her that she would personally like to have in a mother? Having articulated some of these details I thought it was important to catch her children up about this, to remind them of what she appreciated in herself as a mother. This seemed like a joyful idea to her. I predicted that it was unlikely that the efforts to change her live, what she wanted in her life would be greeted with enthusiasm (in fact this was true). Once we see a resurrection of her as a person we have a resurrection of knowledges. She went away determined to show them the new knowledges she had about herself. She declined to accept them to guide her life. She was putting her knowledges of herself against her daughters’ thoughts about who she was as a person and a mother. This was not greeted enthusiastically by her daughters. Her daughters came up with some creative ideas to turn back the clock. The first time that she started talking to elder daughter about how fortunate she was to have her as a mother – her daughter tantrumed – but Elizabeth persisted, she persevered and everyone’s’ lives went forward. She foraged new connections with her daughters and they began to enjoy life more. They became more connected as confidants and as sharers of experiences.

That is the first example.

So these are the steps:

Hearing the problem story – externalizing

Exploring the effects of her views of herself

Identifying effects of the problem story.

We identified how she was recruited.

We were clearing space for unique outcomes.

We were starting to re-evaluate thoughts of self and then actions change.

Story of Johan and Anne

Johan and Anne – were separating – dispute over custody – property settlement. You have those sort of disputes here I imagine.

4

First session: First there was only argument. I felt that I was an excess to this conversation. I managed to interrupt apologetically – a moment of your time, no response –Perhaps just 30 seconds of your time - more of arguing. I thanked them for providing such a clear demonstration of their problems. After I paused, they did it again. I told them that I was understanding and did not need to be shown more. I understood that this was very difficult and a miserable place for them. It took about three or four times of this interrupting before I could talk more. Have you been in those situations when you think, what I am doing here, when all of your ideas go out the window. It is quite crushing, isn’t it? I actually was wishing there was a therapist in the room who might be able to do something helpful about this.

Michael’s questions: In the breathing space that followed I asked: To what extent does this way (this adversarial way) of interaction dominate your relationship? How is it influencing the perception of you have of your relationship? How is this perception of your relationship making you respond in this way? How is it affecting your actions? What does it have you doing that was against your better judgment? I asked them: Is this your preferred way of responding to each other? Is this adversary pattern a way that suits you best? Is this way of being together the way you want? Is it tailor made for you? Do you really prefer this way of being? Is it enriching to your lives? Both claimed that this was not what they personally preferred. Johan said that he didn’t like this at all but Anne seems to prefer it. Anne said, no I don’t like this at all but Johan seems to prefer it. Both claimed it was not their preferred way. I suggested that this pattern was not invented by themselves.

History of this pattern ‘How were you recruited into this pattern of responding to this sort of issue? And identify the history of this pattern. Where did you witness this before? Where did the techniques and practices come from? What situations first exposed them to these techniques? In what context would they expect these patterns commonplace? What justifications were referred to most frequently that sustained them, what helped them to stay in this way? How were they encouraged to live this pattern?

I said: You know practices of power and so on.

They began to realize that this pattern was no longer the truth of their relationship. Their relationship now was not considered characterized by this pattern but influenced by this pattern. The relationship was objectified by this distinction. Do you prefer to leave these patterns as they were or would you prefer to change them? They both indicated that they wanted to free themselves from the dictates of this pattern. We determined what basis there was for the pattern. During this we found a unique outcome.

Unique outcomes in the present – Second part of interview was free from the adversarial pattern.

I wanted them to help me understand how they achieved them – a mystery – they will tell a story to make sense of this mystery – What were the foundations of this

5

achievement? What was this based on? What other developments in your own separate lives were there that would encourage this? Asked about their distant history, were there some couples who had seen them in the past, did anyone see you resolving conflicts. – There was a couple in the past would have witnessed them not in this relationship. Did this couple ever see you resolving a difficulty? Story of a barbecue –I asked what would the other couple have observed in their relationship that would provide some foundation for an alternative story of their relationship and an alternative story of how they resolved problems. What sort of knowhow did they observe? They resurrected old ways of resolving problems and this helped them find ways regarding the custody and property.

Story of Robert

I would like to tell you another story. Is this helpful in understanding this work?

Robert was referred in relationship to abusive behavior to his partner and in relationship to one of his children. The abusive behaviour had only recently been disclosed and he agreed to leave the family home. Police were involved –there are long term traumatic effects of the survivors – short term also – During early contact the discussion had been about the responsibility of the abuse and about the effects on the receivers of abuse. And the short term and the possible long term of the traumatic effects and what he could do to mend this. I would like to refer you to a book by *1 Alan Jenkins – Invitations to Responsibility. Alan is a very good friend of mine who has worked a long time with perpetrators of abuse. He works on opening space for these men to take responsibility and mend what can be mended. He would ask him what he could do to take responsibility. So I asked such questions. I asked if he would be prepared to join me in understanding this better. I wanted to help motivate him to take actions to mend what might be mended. I asked him: Are you prepared to join me with discussions of men who have been perpetuating abuse? So I asked him three questions.

l. What sort of structures and conditions could a man make possible if he wanted to control and dominate a situation? So I was not talking of Robert, is that clear. I was speaking in a more general sense. One that came up was isolation – if you wanted to dominate and control one could isolate those one wanted to control.

2. What kinds of attitudes would make it possible to justify controlling and dominating another person if a man wanted to do this? So we are talking about what sort of conditions would make this possible and then the attitudes and knowledges that would justify. Conditions and then knowledges. The idea of ownership of others’ lives came up.

3. If a man wanted to make a woman or a child captive what sort of strategies of power would make this feasible? Ok, so we are involved in conditions, attitudes which justify, techniques of power – surveillance, comparison. Robert also talked of comparison, So he encourage them to compare themselves to others so if compared unfavorably they can talk of various structures and conditions that support abusive behaviour.

6

I am getting Robert to characterize certain patterns of power (The culture behind the abuse). I then asked him which of these patterns of power or structures that supported abusive behavior. So we are not only talking about the particular person’s situation but we are talking about the structures of power and abuses of power. We live in a culture and our lives are shaped by cultural practices as well as cultural knowledges. Then I asked how had he been recruited into this. I asked him to determine what performance of these attitudes and strategies had done with his relationships. Robert was asked to take a position on the attitudes and knowledges. To what extent did he wish to cooperate with these strategies which he had been recruited in did he wish to continue. To what extent did he want to continue in these actions of power, not that he was the originator of power abuses, but did he want to continue this? This no longer spoke the truth of all men’s ways of being. At first he had said that men are naturally controlling, that they are entitled to this supreme position. Then I asked for Unique outcomes – ways when his behaviours had not been compelled by his previous beliefs about men’s way of being. There was one example that seemed to contradict these ways of being.

One example – different from his typical way of being. Have you witnessed other men behaving as this unique and different way of being? His father had abused him, but Uncle Harold’s way was different. I encouraged him to express this abuse so he could come closer to understanding the experience of his wife and daughter. Was Uncle Harold’s way a preferred way? We explored Uncle Harold.

I forget where I was in this story – I was remembering another story – another man who came to see me with his family – Indian family – family experiencing emotional abuse from this man. I listened to what the children were saying about this man. – They were telling me – he said I was ethnocentric – supported a different idea, -I said how. He said I was supporting western ideas of how men were and this was disqualifying his culture. He was disqualifying my way of being. But being patriarchal is cross cultural – I don’t buy this. I found out this man was brought up in a Hindu family supported by a God that was Shiva – very much a warrior. I noticed some unique outcomes in the session and were not Shivite. I asked what tradition would this represent. He said Rama. There is Krishna, Shiva and Rama who is a different representation of God.

* Rama is revered for his unending compassion, courage and devotion to religious values and duty.

Well that is interesting, tell me about Rama. So what is this process? Who else was Rama, well Gandhi was Rama. I asked the children which they preferred and they felt Rama. I was going to bring that tape but in my rush of getting ready to come I left it at home. I also had some appended comments from the family So, I did not see the problem as cultural but I saw the treatment of culture. This man managed to enter into a more Rama way of being with his family.

We see these alternative knowledge’s which are mostly there in advance and we are in the process of resurrecting them.

7

So to get back to, going back to Robert. He then began to explore this knowledge and exercise it with his family. Robert expressed an interest in getting back with his family and the family was also interested so we convened a meeting. And we included structure to this meeting of escape and secrecy. I won’t go into the details of that because I have other things to say before we finish. This was like a structure that would extend for a long period. I would like to give more details about the work that follows this – I will make this paper available to the conference in about a month or so which will include details about the work that followed this including the various structures for safety and security and to mitigate against the conditions that made abuse possible and so on. What I argue here is that it is not sufficient for men to take responsibility for the abuse, it is not sufficient for them to work out ways to mend what might be mended, it is not sufficient for them to challenge these attitudes, I think that a critical piece is the extent to which these men engage in generating or resurrecting alternative knowldeges of men’s ways of being and extending those knowledges because if people live by the knowledges that they had lived by then simply to challenge those knowledges is never enough. We need to very active in generating these other knowledges and extending them. That to act in different ways and situate them in different ways of being must go forward.

I was going to tell you a story about therapy but I am not going to do that. As you probably know I am very interested deconstructing the therapeutic process to maximize transparency, the ways that are activated in therapy. So that for those of you who came along to the live interview you will have noticed that the reflecting team did a great job of interviewing each other about their comments. So these could be situated so the family members could know how to take them. When you are presented with authority or authoritative statements you have two choices, the disembodied view, the conditions of the view are split off and you can either submit to them or rile against it. If person presents an embodied view, these are my views, this is the history of these views, this is my personal experience of these views them people know how to take it and they are not subject to the information. You will notice that at the end of the interview I encouraged the audience to interview me about the interview so that I could render this transparent. So what is this all about, I think it has to do with deconstruction, I think this is a general theme to this work and what is underlying in the work. I am sorry that I am not an academic, though this allows me to take certain liberties and including the freedom to break the rules, I can break the rules. So I use the work deconstruction in a fairly general way. I got a lecture from an anthropologist recently who was saying this is not the correct way to use the term deconstruction. I said great. According to my very lose definition deconstruction has to do with procedures that subvert taken for granted, so called truths and it takes away from taken for granted realities and practices. Those so called truths that are split off from - or disembodied ways of speaking that hide their biases and prejudices. I was really interested in what Karl Tomm said the other day that it is really important for therapist to acknowledge their intent, and for this to be transparent in some ways to the family. And I think that is a very very important issue in this. And those familiar practices of relationships that are subjugating to a person’s life.

8

I wanted to share with you a term I got from reading *2 Bourdieu, he is a French writer. He said that anthropologists used to go into exotic cultures and domesticate them using the frame of reference from the dominant culture. So instead asking what the ceremonies and practices meant to them these practices would be interpreted by the anthropologists from the framework of the dominant culture. So he called this domesticating the exotic. OK. He argues that those exploring the familiar world, they should do the opposite, they should exoticize the domestic. I will leave you with that, with the idea of being opaque to us because they are familiar.

So I want to leave you with that. I would like to read you a quote of Bourdieu. He says that the sociologist who chooses to study his own world – he is a bit sexist here with the use of the pronoun he- in its nearest and familiar aspect should not as the ethnologist would domesticate the exotic but if I may venture to this expression, should exoticism the domestic, with a break from intimacy with modes of life and thought, in relationship to the things that remain opaque to him because they are too familiar. Is that clear. These familiar ways of being are opaque to us because we are too close to them. So he says, through the objectification of the familiar world we exoticize the domestic. The movement towards the ordinary world should be a culmination with a movement towards an alien and extraordinary work. Through these externalizing practices this ordinary world becomes alien and extraordinary. In a way the objectification of this, we exoticize the domestic through the objectification of the familiar world. And this facilitates the re-appropriation of the self.

How much time do we have Karl, what is the schedule. I would like to take four more minutes to show you my most recent consultant.

The young man with a feeding problem – major crisis in the first year of life and he began to associate eating with being sick. Using an approach that David Epston and I are writing up at the moment called bypassing. So he agreed that to eat himself was a dangerous idea but to starve himself is not a good idea either. So he would instead feed the tiger. Every second day he would come along to lunch and dinner in a tiger suit and he would step aside and let the tiger eat. This young man has become a consultant – to other children in how to feed tigers. David and I are going to write this up, actually we are in the process of writing it up. So I will show the video and Karl Tomm with comment.

Karl – I find this very exciting work. It has been very enriching to my professional development. You see he has a way to be able to connect very sophisticated understanding with clinical practice which is grounded in experience. This is one of the things I appreciate Michael very much. What we have in common I think in that we both privilege the experience over the description of experience. Although language is very important tool we privilege experience, this example of the creating of this experience with this boy we see Michael responding to him, in this very meaningful manner, including the emotional management of the excitement in the change process that we are seeing. Michael plays a very significant part in the change that is going on here. One thing that Michael does not talk about so much is the emotional dynamics in this work between the therapist and the client. In my view the importance of these

9

emotional dynamic, is the coordination of the emotional dynamic that is so important in the grounding the experience with which we orient ourselves within our lives. I think this is an important example of the excitement of the change process instead of being so grounded in the pain and misery of the problem. I am going to go back to the beginning of Michael’s presentation, the process – the conversation – and pick up the various parts of this process that blows my mind – I want to point out that what Michael said in the beginning is that there is a misleading simplicity in his work here – Just as there is a misleading clarity of mine. (Laughter)

They were talking about how clearly I present but in reality I tend to live confusion and because it is my experience in confusion so I try to clarify my confusion and then I appear to be clearer than I actually am. So I think there is misleading regarding clarity and simplicity.

Some think that it is a trick of technique that we are trying to pretend that we see them as having consultant knowledge that they have something to teach us. That there is knowledge that we can benefit from but that we don’t really believe it. The fact that it is their knowledge that they have to have to make their changes. That makes us be genuinely humble. They can teach us. It is their knowledge, we have to facilitate that or at least we can facilitate that – We don’t know what they have done, that makes it possible for us to be genuinely humble in seeking and understanding from them, in terms of the knowledge that they have that we can learn from them, that we genuinely can understand what they can teach us. To me it is important to bring that authenticity into the relationship and not to trivialize it as a treatment technique of some sort. - I am going to skip over some of this as I want to give time to the audience some time to respond.

When Michael was talking of Johan and Anne the separating couple, it reminded me of my work in Hips and Tips - transformation of personal patterns. For instance when he asked them, when he managed to interrupt them, to ask to what extent the adversarial pattern had taken over their relationship. Basically he was inviting them to make a distinction of the pattern from a pathological pattern to maybe something else. What he was doing was a TIP – transforming interpersonal pattern. He was asking them to adopt an observer perspective with respect to their own relationship and to the way in which they had been inducted into that pattern and what techniques they were under the influence of in terms of how they were persisting in that, how they had been recruited into it – so this is clarification of the pathologizing pattern – and the therapeutic process is the transforming of the personal pattern which I refer to as the tip (transforming personal pattern) – then he moved on to what I refer to as the hip – the healing interpersonal pattern – he asked them how they had escaped the patterns in previous moments – and invite them to describe that mystery in terms of articulating it and defining it. What would be a healing kind of interaction? Wondering what would be a healing kind of interaction and then asking what the couple had seen when they saw John and Ann resolve a problem between themselves, you remember in the barbecue – that was again the defining of the healing pattern that could be an antidote to the pathologizing pattern. That fits very much with the work that I have been doing trying to articulate this alternative to the DSM-III.

10

I just want to make a few comments about his work with Robert which I also appreciated a great deal. The thing that I find so useful in understanding responsibility which I found that Michael was working very much in inviting Robert to take responsibility for himself and to disassociate himself from certain habits and certain expectations of himself that are in what Michael called the dominant knowedges that are so prevalent in the patriarchal culture. And in terms of his conversations he was inviting Robert to disembed himself from the actions, the patterns and conditions that he was in, and the knowledges that were embedded within himself, and the techniques of these knowledges that he was using in the pattern of abuse. That the conversation can promote the desembedding of that so that Robert could then begin to see himself and his actions and the effects of those actions as separate phenomena and to be able to make connections more, to then reflect to see whether he liked or disliked the effects of his own actions. And once a person can make that distinctions here, well there are two distinctions, actually a multitude of distinctions but the two crucial, to distinguish the effects of those actions, most important ones are to make the distinctions between ones actions and its effects and then to distinguish whether or not one is in agreement with these actions. This then makes it possible for him not to agree with these actions if he is to be authentic and congruent with himself. This then makes it possible for him (Robert) to become responsible. But I would submit that the responsibility was co-constructed in the therapeutic conversation. It is through the questions that are asked that disembed Robert from his conditions and practices of his prior knowledges, that makes it possible for him to distinguish himself from his behaviours and the effects of his behaviours, and whether he likes those effects and then as Michael emphasized at the end, we need to go further than just admitting that we make mistakes and what we don’t want to associate ourselves with. We need to develop new knowledges, to enter into new practices that are the kind of practices that have the effects that we do desire and that we like.

So those are some of the ways that I can see your work connecting with mine. I just want to conclude by saying that I am very interested in making the therapists’ work transparent. Transparent not only to us but transparent to our clients. So that we can become more honest with ourselves and recognize the effects of our own actions, and to recognize when the effects are not therapeutic and might even be counter-therapeutic then we can take responsibility and change those actions. We can then mobilize the resources of clients and families to help us to take that responsibility. If we allow ourselves to be transparent then they will respond to us in ways that we will be able to see ourselves through their eyes, and we can mobilize ourselves to see ourselves through their eyes and know what they find to be effective. It is for that reason that I prefer to work more in the conscious domain then in the non-conscious domain like the hypnotic. There are times when I cannot remain in the conscious domain but it is my preference. And I think we empower our clients to become more aware and more able to speak and not be as passive in relation to us. So those are my views.

Let me just add a final comment, you were taking about making the domestic exotic, and alienating and making things extraordinary and I think that adds life to life and we

11

generate more differences and to me that is what this is all about. In terms of increasing the life of this work.

Michael: I just want to clarify a point, I did say exoticizing the domestic not eroticizing the domestic.

Much laughter.

Stephen Madigan came up to me after one of my workshops in Washington and said I really love this idea of erotizing the domestic. I said that I thought that was an even better idea but that wasn’t the one I was talking about. (More laughter)

We have a few minutes for questions.

Question – not heard.

Michael – It depends on how you use the word deconstruction. If you are subverting certain taken for granted realities and practices that people live by then I guess that is deconstructing. According to *3Derrida, when you bring out of the shadows the other side, that other position that is inherent in the text but not visible that is also a deconstruction. So using a Derridean idea working with people to bring out from under the shadows these ideas that would be a deconstruction method. So I think you can refer to the whole thing (does he mean therapy process) as a deconstructive method.

Another unheard questions.

Michael. There are sometimes when the language and the experience are the same and I think that is wonderful and you feel a flowing, but when they are different, I privilege the experience over language. I think there is a circle here, experience structures expression and expression structures experience. I would go with Karl and say experience comes prior to language and I wouldn’t be thinking of these in the same domain. They are inexplicably linked but I couldn’t get into this idea that they are one and the same thing. I think they are very distinct domains. They are certainly linked through this hermeneutic cycle. But there is something in this and we could spend our whole workshop on this. I think this is a very important questions.

Karl – I would like to make one more comment about this, in a technical way. They are in different domains, where language exists in the sensory perceptual domain and is experienced between others, where experience exists in the somato sensory domain which is embodiment. They are different domains so I think it is important to differentiate this.

Michael: I think we have to stop, I would like to thank you. Applause.

The Tulsa psychiatric center presents generating possibilities through therapeutic conversations. June 28 1991.

Day two: Tulsa: Gail ???Appetus??? from Children’s and family services introduces Michael.

12

Michael thinks Tulsa is an exciting place to be. It is a pleasure to welcome Michael back. We may hold the world’s record of being a somewhat unknown city that Michael knows more than any other city in the United State. This is his sixth visit. I and my colleagues had the pleasure of hearing about his work from Karl Tomm who made this connection happen and our city being one of the first if not the first city that Michael came to present his work in the United States. Our organization was deeply impacted by his work both in our clinical practice and in the administrations practices of the organization. The influence of Michael’s Whites work is wide spread in our city and our Children’s and family service center. Many other centers and state systems are also using his work. Many state systems have adopted Michaels work and use it with specialized populations. Our colleagues have adapted his work.

Michael is a very dear friend of mine, he is very connected to the ideas that he expresses, he is kind of complex to describe, his personal style and his respect to others is impressive, his use of language, ideas and his person that makes his personal style and his respect and playfulness also makes it so special. He has done some exciting work with children. I know him personally, and I have permission to say some of these things about him. I think of movement when I think of him. I know him when he is not doing family therapy. His work has moved our field. But when he not teaching, studying, writing and working with clients- he flies, (he just had his 40th birthday and renewed his license), he bicycled everywhere before got a car last year, lately he has mastered the art of unicycling and juggling. Rumour has it that he has an aspiration to be an unicyclist on the high wire trapeze. Through my friendship with Michael I have met Cheryl and become very good friends with her who he is a husband to and who is the most important person in his life. Please welcome Michael back to Tulsa.

Michael: Gail (person introducing Michael) became an adopted member of our extended family.

I was just planning the workshop a short time ago. I am going to suggest we do this in two parts –I usually like to engage people in the audience with an exercise and then show a video tape, but I will do reverse today. I’m going to show the video tape first and then we will do the exercises. I enjoy these exercises so please choose the right people to do the exercise with. I want you to scrutinize your neighbor, the people alongside of you and see if this person looks likable. If you are not sure find someone else. You can come up and look from the front and see if there is someone you like better for a neighbor.

OK, I will start by showing tape – will stop and start –This is a first interview of family that I did fairly recently. I have not seen this tape yet and I would like to see it. I thought it might be a good interview for us to talk about. We will talk of the questions.

I will tell you a bit about this family. There are four people in this interview. Maybe I should do a genogram. (There was a suggestion that he could do it on overhead) There is no transparency here so I will use the paper. Please there can be no recording of the session – audio recording to shut down –I do not have permission for this to be copied. I see these situations as opportunities extending some of the work that I am

13

doing with these families. This is opportunity of extending this work. I am very interested in you giving back your feedback. I will be asking you some questions which will help me structure some of the feedback to this family so will write up some of the comments and mail it back to the family.

Germaine – 51 – he works in dentistry

Tatiana – 39 – also works in the dentistry area.

Elena – 17

Galit – 12

Elena is the person who family members who have been most concerned about. She has had anorexia nervosa and bulimia for about three years. There has been a number of attempts to deal with this problem over the years without a great deal of progress. Elena’s weight is up and down. In recent times she weighs about 38 kgms. I saw this family in a consultation session in Israel. The therapist brought the family along to see where to go with this work so it wasn’t always the same with moving forward and falling back again. The therapist wanted to see if the ups and downs could be changed. This therapist had just started to externalize recently. I stepped in to continue this work of externalization and to extend it some. I think this is a reasonable representative of the work I do with anorexia nervosa. Externalizing conversations enables the family to get together and break free from the dictates of anorexia nervosa. But before we get into this externalization I encourage family to map the effects of this problem on them. I wanted to know how problem effects their view of themselves as a person and a family and what they are doing with the problem that affects them and each other. This is very very important in this process.

Video tape. No sound Michael had not permission from the family to record the dialogue.

Maximizing the transparency. Very often this is the most important part of the interview. Most often the end of the session is what people are most interested in. They ask me about my questions, the parents asked me why I asked these questions. They often give more importance to my response to these questions than to the interview. They ask me about the questions and they are listening so carefully to the responses I give to them. Sometimes when I ask for feedback there are a lot of questions they have for me and they listen very much to my responses. It is a bit of a blow to the ego when the therapy session is done and you think you did something important there and what is important to them is more about this part. There is this idea in psychotherapy that if the patient knows what it is about the therapy won’t work so well. It is a crazy idea. We try to challenge these structures that there should be therapist secrets. So we try to maximize the transparency. I don’t know where it comes from that therapists should keep things secret and we try to maximize transparency. I try very hard to let people know about my questions and my thoughts about therapy.

I hope the sound is fine.

14

Questions about the beginning of the tape from the audience which could not be heard. I was struck by ………

Michael: So there are other possibilities for her to live by. We can come back to this. Listening to this joining thing – I am thinking, “What will you all think about this? I was about to press the forward button, I then thought, no, this is an important part of the process and it is often overlooked in the accounts we give of therapy so I didn’t press the button. I feel that this joining is very important to give account to what is important in therapy.

More tape – no permission to record–

We are encouraging the family to map the effects of anorexia nervosa in their lives. What we are talking about here is the effects of anorexia nervosa on the family, physical emotional social intellectual domains. There is also this unique outcome a year ago and a more recent one where Elena has shown some anti-anorectic behaviours. These have been talked about with the therapist. I find that when you start to map the influences of anorexia nervosa on all these domains then you find things that are outside of the anorexia nervosa story. If we stay in the narrow field with which anorexia defines them miss a lot. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia are not totalizing of the person’s life, there are always stories (contradictions) that fall outside of this anorexia story and often these are anti-anorexia behaviours. We encourage people to take note of this. So how did you come to take this step? How did they come about? What was the point during which you started to become anti-anorexia? This process makes it much easier to identify the unique outcomes. They start to place them on the pro-anorexia side and anti- anorexia. Then I moved away and start to map how anorexia nervosa affects other members of the family. I find that in working in this way it is more easily possible to find some unique outcomes. If you stay in the narrow story of bulimia it is harder to do this. So – these things that I call unique outcomes, this is a notion I get from *3 Erving Goffman. I look for anything, an event, feeling or thought that contradicts the problem story, something that you would not predict in the situation that is outside the dominant story. I am not interested in having them repeat this unique outcome, these are a gateway to alternative knowledge, an alternative story, and an alternate way of being. I am interested in that as a gateway to some alternative knowledge of the person – alternative territory. Once you have a unique outcome you can hold it up and say– Hey look, let me understand this – This is a mystery to me, help me understand this mystery, help me unravel it in some way. This encourages the family to unravel this. When we have these contradictions people get busy re-storying – this is a mystery. I am asking Elena to help me understand how this comes about how she became anti-anorectic. I dropped that and go on to mapping the effects on the family but later on I come back to this. In the second half of this meeting (with you). I am going to present a framework for you that would help the therapist manage their questions that would help them re-author their lives. Later in the workshop I am going to map out some guidelines for you as therapists to ask questions in such a way that encourages the family members to re-author their lives.

15

Michael: Of course this work is very based on the social-constructivist perspective. This work is against the perspective that the people are going to stay in their way of being in their lives.

I believe that people live their lives from their stories. We externalize the problem, we map the effects of the problem. So when we identify their unique outcomes which become portals for alternative stories and family members fill in all the spaces for us. So it is not like we are reframing. We are not putting it together and passing it back to the family. We are asking questions. We are trying to make sense of it. You cannot make sense out of something unless you are situated in a frame or within the context of this story.

More tape:

There are quite a few discussions in this program about the different between healing conversations and pathologizing conversations. And what we are doing here is, that I understood from the parents is they feel failures. What we are seeing here is the parents are feeling like they are failures. We know that there is a dominant idea in this field is that somehow anorexia nervosa relates to intrusive mothers, and that the child situates themselves in the problem because of what happens to the child early in life. And this conception fits in well with the mother blaming culture that we have. The ideas in psychotherapy are culturally informed ideas. Conferences – words heard most often – individuation and differentiation. These are dominant ideas in this field, this is also culturally informed. Self-possessed and self-contained. Rugged individualism is a dominant notion – people self- contained. A dominant notion that specifies how to be as people. We have come to a different conception of Tatiana, that Tatiana is helpful. This is a very different notion from Mother Blaming.

Let us go forward to get more of this different process.

Tape

How is this going? (To audience). Elena’s desire to have a life of her own has become much strong in this conversation. Elena has never really been able to develop anti-anorectic understanding of behaviours. Do you see how quickly Elena could identify with anti-anorectic and pro- anorectic behaviours? This is something her other therapist had never identified with her but she quickly was able to pick it up. She very quickly becomes able to identity, this is anti and this is pro. This desire to have a life of her own, to reclaim her life, I sense this as a very strong force. The people who have a sense of their life unfolding –comes from a sense of life unfolding through recent history, the more they have a sense of having a future, of acting with their own agency. You see with Elena – getting a bit of a map through time – recent history – she is developing an idea of anti-anorectic, map of unfolding anti-anorectic development through recent history we know that she go more forward.

The clearer that people are about the unfolding of self through recent history the more they have a sense of having a future, the more they have a sense of having their own agency. Elena is having a sense of being somewhat of, of having an agency.

16

This is an unfolding anti-anorexic development through recent history – we know it is very significant.

I often think of an arch in this work. The Tuscans developed these arches and that made new forms of architecture. These arches could maintain enormous weights. The arch is made up of wedge shaped stones these are uniquely placed in these arches. Each of these stones is dependent on the stones on each side, on what comes before and after. The stones on each side are dependent also upon stones on the other side. Unique outcomes can be thought of as one stone. We can become very curious about what does this unique outcome owe in its unique place and this unique time. Why is it there at this place and this time? So when family members are plotting the unique outcomes into time, they are beginning to plot another story. So (as I said before) we can become very curious about this unique outcome and why was it here at this place and at this time. So we can be curious with Elena taking an anti-anorectic step. We ask questions what supports this. We can find out about what came before and what came after. They get plotted into an alternative story – anti-anorexia – resistance – one unique outcome is one of a serious of events that will make sense as we plot this. We begin to understand better what contributed to this unique outcome. How much have you reclaimed your life at this time from anorexia nervosa? 90%. I would like to say something of the importance of time. How much of your life was reclaimed from anorexia nervosa six months ago? – 60%, where a year ago 40%.

I want to talk about the importance of time – the temporal dimension. You will begin to see that this is not just a story by itself. It is a temporal story. It is situated into time – that is very important – past, present, and into the future.

I have been working as a consultant to a large state psychiatric hospital. I was a consultant to the chronic unit – many people experienced their lives as frozen in time. What happened today, nothing, yesterday, nothing. Many families were in the psychiatric system for 30 years. We found it extremely helpful to help them start to situate their experience their life through the diminution of time. Once they started situating themselves a sense of life unfolding through recent history, their live goes forwards. We don’t have to think of them as frozen. When think of it through recent history we see turning point when they start to separate from the problem. The more Elena can see herself as separate from anorexia nervosa the less influence that anorexia nervosa has on her life. This we could see as the interview went on. Anorexia speaks less and less even during the interview of her identity. It had capsulated of certain practices, punished her body. As she starts to separate from this she starts to separate from anorexia. This (going forward) can be seen as possible. Because Anorexia Nervosa has an encapsulation of who she should be as a woman, certain behaviours were expected. She punished her body, there was vigilance and surveillance of her body. (This conversation) separates her from the practices – self-projection and self-torture. We see the people start separating. We get to a point when these things are far more visible to us – over sessions – then they are to family members. This can be a bit of a problem. We can get into the position of convincing. When this happens

17

we become the primary authors of the story - not the family members – we are more interested in the family members becoming the primary authors of the alternative story. We use temporal understanding – we introduce this temporal dimensions to the family somehow. We might send them home with first video tape and this tape – encourage them to look at them, don’t implant any ideas, just ask them to look at the first video tape and the last video tape and ask them to make a note of differences if they see any differences. (With this we) usually see an acceleration of preferred story. The family experiences life going forward, (they start) noticing changes and then experience going forward to the preferred future.

Question – not heard –

Michael’s response: As this become more elaborated the less the old story figures in the person’s life. As this new life becomes more visible the preferred story for their lives goes forward and the old story becomes the shadow. It is a version of being, as this other version of being becomes more accessible, then the previous version of being goes into the shadows a bit.

I am very interested in historicizing the unique outcome– what is the history of the unique outcome. Later on I am going to be interested in (historicizing) your presence in this workshop.

I am historicizing through recent history and through distance history. I ask questions. How did you manage to take this anti-anorexic step? Who contributed (to the step?) Who was involved? What were you thinking of? What was your training in your life (for this step)? I know you were suffering a lot but what happened to make this happen?

We can then historicize through more distant history. If I had been a spectator to Elena’s history –in her life at an earlier time, what would I have witnessed to make me predict that this unique outcome, this anti-anorexic step at this time? (I could ask another family member) What do you think I might have witnessed her doing that would make me predict this unique outcome? All of this is historicizing this unique outcome.

Who would be least surprised to know that you actually took this step at this point? Elena might say everyone would be surprise. I know everyone would be surprised but who would be least surprised? Aunt Mavis. Tell me what Aunt Mavis saw you doing at an earlier time that might have given her some hint that you could do this at this time? So we have this dominant story of incompetence and now we having another story of competence, and this can become stronger.

So we find the history of the alternative and preferred story, we often find that it was more prevalent in the past. We can historicize through recent history and through past. I will give you some structure for this later on in the conference.

We can think of this as a Double arch. The Landscape of action (is the lower arch). This is landscape of consciousness, it is above the landscape of action. People get above the Landscape of Action and contemplate on it. Consciousness comes from reflecting

18

on the landscape of actions. They fit it together so they can make some sense of this. All good stories have well developed landscape of action – events that fit within some sequence. The sequence or arrangement is determined by the plot that occurs across time, across a temporal dimensions. Events, some sequence, through time.

There are events that fit within some sequence. The sequence is very much occurred around some plot – and all of this occurs through time. (However) all good stories are much more than that. If that is all they were they would be quite boring wouldn’t they. (They would be boring) if they do not have a consciousness. There are characters, (and there is) also the landscape of meaning. The characters in the story, as they reflect on action and give this meaning, we even see a revision or purpose. We say – ‘Tell me – this was what Aunt Mavis saw you doing this thing in the past, what do you think she thought your motive was? How did that affect the picture she had of you as a person?’ This is consciousness. We see a revision of meaning. We see a revision of purpose. This relates to the realizations, the meaning that is given to the Landscape of Action. We see a revision of meaning, a revision of purpose.

So we would say, ‘What you think Aunt Mavis thought was your intention when she saw this? What did she think your intentions were when she saw this action? Elena would give a representation of a noble purpose. We see a revision of purpose. Motives are socially constructed. We can be involved with a revision or motives. When we see a revision of motives we know that their lives will change? That is one thing that really stands out in this work. That once people start to revise their motives historically, their lives go forward in these leaps. After the break I am going to give you some information about Kenneth Burk’s work.

*5 Kenneth Burks work. We will talk about deconstructing motives. We encourage them (those who consult us) to revise their motives.

Landscape of Consciousness and Landscape of Action make up stories. Motives make stories move. Unique outcomes provide gateway to these new stories. (They provide) a point of entry, we can ask questions to give an attribution of new meanings, a revision of motives through these landscape of consciousness questions. We can ask lots of questions. ‘What do you think it tells about your relationship with anorexia?’

‘What do you think it tells Elena about her relationships that might be news to her?’ We see a revision of motives when we start asking these landscape of consciousness questions.

Should we continue or take a break – we will take a break. I could talk about this until 10:30 tonight.

After break.

Let’s start again.

I want to reiterate a couple of points.

The proposal that I am working from is that people live their lives under the guidance of the stories of their lives that often control their lives. And that the

19

externalizing of these stories, this externalization approach helps people separate from the dominant stories of their lives, the truths of their lives and enables people to enter in to a space that helps them orient themselves to this mystery (of unique outcomes), that they can unravel this mystery. I have given you some ideas about how to find another option to the story that they have about their lives. We are not just talking about conversations in which people separate themselves from a dominant story but there is another knowledge they have of their families and their lives that they may be able to enter into – family members are very actively involved in generating and we talked about the plan of action and consciousness. What I am trying to say is that externizations and unique outcomes provides a gateway for people to find alternate stories for their lives and enables them to go into a space which makes it easier for them to orient themselves to this mystery, their unique outcomes which enables them to go forward and the therapist can establish the family in a re-authoring therapy. We know when we do this externalizing and finding the unique outcomes we enable the family to see other stories and to see other ways they can go forward and other stories they can step into. So we are not just talking about conversations in which people separate from dominant versions of who they are as people but we are also talking about therapeutic conversations in which people are very actively involved in generating or if you like even resurrecting these alternative stories with which they can live their lives. We talked about the plane of action and the plane of consciousness where people have resurrected the alternative stories we can start to ask questions which can help them give meaning to these alternate stories, an alternative plane of consciousness. So we are not just talking about actions people take. Once family members begin to generate or resurrect an alternative landscape of action we can then ask them questions that attribute to a difference consciousness. Attributing meaning to this landscape of action.

A French writer called Barker??? Bach??? Bark – maybe Jean Bark???(I do not know who this is, I have searched) said the goal of the reader is to make the writer a better writer– in these authoring conversations our goal is the make the people better writers of their lives. Family members are entering into these other stories with their imagination. I could say more about imagination because it is very important in this work but I am not going to right now. I think that imagination is a very important part of this work.

More video.

Tatiana: She talked about how hurt she was. ‘How did this hurt affect you?’ She said I had no life. We are talking of Tatiana, encouraging her to talk about how it has influenced her, she has (felt that she has) been the problem, and later on we talk about how it influenced the thoughts of herself. We are getting into how this has influenced Tatiana’s life, I have no life. I was encouraging the mother to talk about how this problem experienced perception of herself later – first talks of hurt, bulimia was so very hurtful. ‘So what effect did that have?’ I was closed in a box of isolation. She did not want to live herself. We are starting to understand the private story of Tatiana. The hurt and the guilt and how it is influencing her life. She was starting to feel not good

20

enough as a mother. See how externalization is a very important process of this work, how the problem is affecting her. It has been quite traumatic to her.

I start to engage the father in this - Germaine – now father starting to respond. We will watch a small piece of that.

I will tell you what happened with the rest of the interview – Germaine started to respond, - I engaged him in filling some of these spaces in terms of this other version of who Tatiana might be, these other versions of who Tatiana might be came from talking of resent developments of what Tatiana was doing He was engaged in co-authoring of her story. These were anti-anorectic responses.

Anorexia nervosa and bulimia had an effect on their relationship. It turned out to have an isolating effect in their relationship. This problem had interfered in their relationship. It made it difficult to be with each other and spend time with each other. I asked more questions and out of this conversation of effects came a unique outcome. A time when couple were able to be with each other. ‘How did they achieve that?’ I engaged children in this in some landscape of consciousness questions. ‘How did they see this it in terms of the relationship with their parents?’

I asked how this unique outcome might affect their parent’s relationship. Galit –It is powerful –

It is showing how this relationship was reclaimed from the possible loss. ‘What steps made this possible?’ I work to encourage them to plot the events in some sequence through recent history so they can go forward, knowing that this could make it possible for them to go forward.

In the example of the other day which some of you might have seen, I was working with a couple. They came up with a next step when I did this. I had not made a suggestion of this next step at that time. They had a clear idea of next step. They were going to try this evening – not my suggestion – This is a co-authoring of the story.

Galit – ‘How did this problem affect you?’ It interfered with her relationship with Tatiana. Suggestions (came up) of how this relationship was reclaimed from the problem. Once again I wanted to know how did they achieve this, what did they do to allow this to happen. What steps had made it possible. Putting this together in recent history, I take them to recent history knowing this will allow them to go forward.

I was encouraging Tatiana to be a spectator of her own life – encouraged Galit to be a response to that.

I asked what I call experience of ‘experience questions.

Elena – ‘What do you feel your father is experiencing of you as a person when he sees this, what effect does this have on your relationship, etc.’ I speculate about the father’s experience of her. ‘And what’s possible of you as a person?’ I am encouraging her to reflect about what he might be thinking of her as a person.

21

So we see that at various levels I am engaging the family members in this whole re-authoring – it is actually a co-authoring – engaging Tatiana – then Germaine to respond.

We had a reflecting team. Reflecting teams provide further points of entry which sometimes made possible by the reflections. The family members might find a realization. I can ask: ‘How could that be helpful to you? If you kept that realization close to you how might that make a different?’ It allows them to go into possible future stories. I could engage them in some of the particularities of this story. ‘What would you predict that this realization might make in your relationship if keep this realization close to you?’ They might come up with ideas as what they might do. In this process the family members are able to see other stories. I wanted to say something else about that but it escapes me. What was I talking about?

I encouraged family members to assess the comments on them.

A family member might say they were interested in this. I ask, ‘Why were they interested in this? What difference would it make to their relationship with the problem?’

As therapists we can’t know what is best for the family, we need to get their assessment of the interview. This is not taking a one down positions, it is not a strategy. It gives us information of the next step for us. We are very much dependent on their account of their experience. We can’t presume to know what is best for them.

You noticed I asked a lot of questions, Tatiana said there was Openness. I ask Elena, ‘Is this a preferred development for them or not?’ I don’t think that a unique outcome should be enthusiastically embraced by the family because I think it is good. So I ask. ‘Is this a preferred development or not, is this an appealing development or not, this is a good development or not? If they say yes – I ask why – ‘Why is this an appealing development for you look, hey wait a minute I would like to not if this is a preferred direction for you. – i.e. Take a teen is succeeding in education. I ask them, ‘Is this is a good thing?’ Many young people say yes. Then I ask, ‘Why is this a preferred development? Why is it attractive to you?’ Well I could get a good job. ‘What does a good job got going to it? Yes it gives choice but sometimes choices are hard. Could you tell me why it is preferred for you, many young people are not into educations? So you find the family getting together to go against the problem. There are elements not particularly evident in this conversation. We work on getting the significance of a unique outcome. We get family members arguing together for something, teens often take a position on a point that they never had before, you get them and the family working together against the problem.

So we get family members taking a position on the problem rather than against each other. We are getting people to evaluate the significance of a unique outcome. So family members start arguing for it if it is worth arguing for. It often gets children taking a position on it when other family members had taken a position.

Do you want to ask me questions or comments about the interview before going on with the interview? – I can de-construct what was behind my questions –

22

Question: Did you get the reflecting team to be questioned by the family?

Michael: Yes they did. Also the family joined the conference and listened to the discussion after the interview. This is part of the transparency in this work. They also had questions about my own participation in the interview, I could talk about what was behind certain questions. This gave me the opportunity to de-construct. What I was thinking about and so on. They seem quite intrigued with that.

Question not heard – I have a fantasy about anorexia that was ……..not heard…….. I would ask that girl what she is trying to get out of anorexia-

Michael: I would not ask that question because I don’t share the same fantasy. I couldn’t ask this question because I have not those fantasies. I am not saying it is a bad fantasy to have, fantasies are fantasies. Your fantasy related to current functionalism perspective that is quite dominant in this field and in our culture. That the problem serves a purpose. It is a tradition of thought taken up from Freud, borrowed from biology. A person is a part of that physiology, then can think of the symptom serving a purpose in rebalancing. That is thinking of social organization as physiology – surface - symptom serving a purpose – or utility value – functionalist perspective so we have lots of reasons to have those fantasies. We have a lot of reason to have that fantasy.

I don’t have those fantasizes. I have a very different notion. I don’t have the notion of problem representative of something else. The problem is representation of what it is, not of something else. People live by the stories they have of their lives. These stories determine the meaning they give to their experience and which aspects of their experience they give value to. This story has real effects in terms of shaping their lives and their actions. It gives the person the aspects of how they respond and think about themselves and these stories have real effects in terms of the relationship they have with. I don’t have a positivist view, this story is what, is it really about. That is why I would not have this fantasy.

Question: How long have you been treating this family? Where would you go from here?

Michael: This was a consultation interview. They would go on from here. The person primarily involved with the family was the regular therapist. There was a physician who had been involved. I am interested in Steve’s comments yesterday, when he said something about things being what they are. It was an idea that I thought was very well put and I had a very strong sympathy to this response.

Question about Ericsonian thought and imagination.

Michael: I can’t answer the question because I am not very into Ericsonian thought on imagination. I think of *6 Bachelard, Gaston. I would recommend that you read, ‘The poetics of space’. He talks about creative imagination that is not mediated by the mind in any sense, he is talking of rhetoric. I am not familiar with Ericsonian notions, I know that Bachelard is not talking of the unconscious, I don’t think that fits with Ericsonian notions of the unconscious.

23

Question: Can you give us an example of some questions to revise motives? (Another question which I did not hear.)

Michael: No it is not. I mean, in answer to the first question, yes, in answer to the second question, no. I will give you a structure that might help in consideration of revision of motive.

Sense from family members responses –

(Questions not able to hear only Michael’s response. Something like: “Were you purposely using the same language as the family?)

Michael: I had consulted with the therapist, language is so important isn’t it. I had a pretty good notion of the language from the responses I got back from the family that it was working for them.

You mentioned this idea of ascription of meaning. We see certain developments taking place through the landscape of action. We start with the unique outcome, we only need one at first, if you start map the influence of the problem in the family’s life you will get many unique outcomes. Then question so can describe the history of that. We get the story of these events situated in time, get some sense of the inscription of meaning. I encourage that. ‘What does it mean that you took this step of this time, what do you think it means about the sense you make of your life, what you think is says about you as a person, how does it reflect new identity, what do think if might mean in relationship to your parents relationship that is important for them to know? This is what it means by ascription of meaning of the unique outcome story. I would argue that we are primarily meaning making, we are always giving meaning in relationship to developments through the landscape of action. We are very active in making meaning in our lives. We become most active when things are out of order, when somehow the usual run of events gets out of order. When we have a unique outcome, families become very active in giving meaning to these events, so when get this unique outcome families get very active. In order to help them with meaning we have to resurrect other stories.

Question around a behaviour of the girl which was discovered in the conversation and why the question about that did not go forward:

Michael: I was not sure if this would constitute an anti-anorexic response for Elena, so I checked this out and it did not.

(Question: not heard – Something like, How would you explain that?)

Michael: Yes that is right. I would say that this for whatever reason this did not constitute a point of entry into an alternative story for family members. They were not engaged in going into this new territory, I would say that it did not provide at the time, for whatever reason, the gateway for an alternative story for the family at that time. We did talk of this at a later time, it seemed to suggest that perhaps Elena, – interpreting this later – when the group was asking me questions with the family present they asked me about why this form of questions did not go forward. I said that I think then she had made a frontal attack on the problem (Anorexia nervosa) and this might not

24

have been a wise thing to do so now she was being more strategic – so that now she was undermining anorexia – undermining the isolation – this seemed to be acting with more wisdom. I said that I can’t ask her now because this would be breaking the rules but if I were to ask her a question about this, I would wonder if this was a much more likely way or undermining the strength of bulimia. And she actually answered my question saying that it was better to be more strategic.

I could answer more questions but I would like to give you a talk of something to do. I would like to introduce you more to re-authoring – revision of motive. I find this idea of revision of motive is a very important idea, when they ascribe alternative ideas of intentions we see amazing changes in their lives. Before an event meant failure –they are able to revise that in some way - then later they ascribe other motives. If we talk about motives, if we talk about people living by stories we have to talk more about desires. Psychotherapy has become very scientific lately and thus psychotherapy took out desires – saying that desires are having to do with other behaviours. –structures or unconscious mechanisms so we bring back desire back in.

We have five possibilities, I want you to do only one.

Experiment with the questions –team up with another person – two, three, or four or six if you want a reflecting team. The important thing is that one person must be willing to be the interviewer, another interviewee. One person in this exercise will take a recent unique outcome in their own work, a time when feeling empowering with their work – a recent highlight in your own work. Maybe you had a conversation that seemed to result in something special in the person or couple or family. Be prepared to be interviewed about the history of this – landscape of action questions and landscape of consciousness questions – tell me how did you take this step in therapy, what were you thinking at the time, what developments were happening in your life, what is the history of being able to take this step – what was going on in your life at the time that made it possible for you to take this step – so be asked these landscape of action questions – attempt to find two or three antecedents.

Then landscape of consciousness questions: What does this mean about yourself as a therapist –then some historicizing questions: out of all the many supervisors you have had, who would be the least surprised to see you take this step- what might they have seen in you that would have predicted this step – or a person in your life who would have seen this.

The second one could be: The history of your presence to this workshop. My guess is that in some ways the practices and values of this work fit with your own preferred actions and values. Perhaps there are some discoveries you have made in your work that you might not have fully articulated that are somehow connected to my work, what is the history of what you are finding in my work.

What is the history of the story, of these being preferred practices in your work? Were you learning something that didn’t fit with you and you moved away – recent events that connects you to these preferred ideas?

25

These are not externalizing exercises –you are not starting with a problem that speaks of the person’s identified.

The third questions is: Think about an experience that historically you thought of as failure and you have been re-thinking this, do to some recent event in life. This is a particular good one for men to do, men when they experience failure they are failing to measure up to what culture says specifications of who we should be as men. So might actually think of this as an achievement – moving away from some of the specifications of who we are. So if anyone thinks of something that happened that brought them into an entirely new perspective.

The fourth is: Make up your own exercise.

Fifth – do something else.

Someone asked for more choices

Kenneth Burke – de-constructive motive – (The Rhetoric of motives) Any statement of motive includes information about a map of this event, includes information about the scene of this event, includes information about who was involved, the agents, characters, it involves information about the agency – the instruments we used to achieve – It might include wisdom or some practical instruments- has to do with know how – the fifth one is a statement of purpose –is very much part of any description of motives – the desires or intensions of taking the step that they took.

So we could say this is a deconstruction of motives.

Question: Could you give us a sample?

Michael: Example from Elena – who would predict – friend – her name – Marian – ho involved? What did she know about you, how did you put into practice what problem solving skills. Describe the context. If I were to ask Marian how she would describe this (experience of experience questions through Marian’s eyes) – what about purpose. ‘If I were to ask Marian about what she thought about your purpose for this action, what would she think?’

*1 Jenkins, AlanInvitations to Responsibility : The Therapeutic Engagement of Men Who Are Violent and Abusive

Published by Dulwich Centre Publications, Adelaide, S.Australia (1990)

ISBN 10: 0731696212 ISBN 13: 9780731696215

*2. Pierre Bourdieu (French: August 1930 – 23 January 2002) was a sociologist, anthropologist, philosopher, and renowned public intellectual.

Bourdieu's work was primarily concerned with the dynamics of power in society, and especially the diverse and subtle ways in which power is transferred and social order maintained within and across generations. In conscious opposition to the idealist tradition of much of Western

26

philosophy, his work often emphasized the corporeal nature of social life and stressed the role of practice and embodiment in social dynamics. His research pioneered novel investigative frameworks and methods, and introduced such influential concepts as cultural, social, and symbolic forms of capital (as opposed to traditional economic forms of capital), the habitus, the field or location, and symbolic violence. Another notable influence on Bourdieu was Blaise Pascal, after whom Bourdieu titled his Pascalian Meditations. Bourdieu's seminal contributions to the sociology of education, the theory of sociology, and sociology of aesthetics have achieved wide influence in several related academic fields (e.g. anthropology, media and cultural studies, education), popular culture, and the arts.

*3. Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) was the founder of “deconstruction,” a way of criticizing not only both literary and philosophical texts but also political institutions. Although Derrida at times expressed regret concerning the fate of the word “deconstruction,” its popularity indicates the wide-ranging influence of his thought, in philosophy, in literary criticism and theory, in art and, in particular, architectural theory, and in political theory. Indeed, Derrida's fame nearly reached the status of a media star, with hundreds of people filling auditoriums to hear him speak, with films and televisions programs devoted to him, with countless books and articles devoted to his thinking. Beside critique, Derridean deconstruction consists in an attempt to re-conceive the difference that divides self-reflection (or self-consciousness). But even more than the re-conception of difference, and perhaps more importantly, deconstruction works towards preventing the worst violence. It attempts to render justice. Indeed, deconstruction is relentless in this pursuit since justice is impossible to achieve.

*4(Erving Goffman (11 June 1922 – 19 November 1982), a Canadian-born sociologist and writer, was considered "the most influential American sociologist of the twentieth century". In 2007 he was listed by The Times Higher Education Guide as the sixth most-cited author in the humanities and social sciences, behind Anthony Giddens and ahead of Jürgen Habermas.

Unique Outcomes” is a term used by sociologist Erving Goffman to describe those sparkling, often fleeting moments in life when the tide seems to turn. Unique Outcomes are events that could not have been easily predicted at the start of the journey but which can be a source of the greatest meaning and potential for change.

Goffman was the 73rd president of the American Sociological Association. His best-known contribution to social theory is his study of symbolic interaction. This took the form of dramaturgical analysis, beginning with his 1959 book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Goffman's other major works include Asylums (1961), Stigma (1963), Interaction Ritual (1967), Frame Analysis (1974), and Forms of Talk (1981). His major areas of study included the sociology of everyday life, social interaction, the social construction of self, social organization (framing) of experience, and particular elements of social life such as total institutions and stigmas. In dramaturgical sociology it is argued that the elements of human interactions are dependent upon time, place, and audience. In other words, to Goffman, the self is a sense of who one is, a dramatic effect emerging from the immediate scene being presented. Goffman forms a theatrical metaphor in defining the method in which one human being presents itself to another based on cultural values, norms, and beliefs.)

27

*5 Kenneth Duva Burke (May 5, 1897 – November 19, 1993) was an American literary theorist who had a powerful impact on 20th-century philosophy, aesthetics, criticism, and rhetorical theory. As a literary theorist, Burke was best known for his analyses based on the nature of knowledge. Furthermore, he was one of the first individuals to stray away from more traditional rhetoric and view literature as "symbolic action."

Kenneth Burke (Author) A Grammar of Motives (1945) and A Rhetoric of Motives (1950), Burke's conception of "symbolic action" comes into its own: all human activities—linguistic or extra-linguistic—are modes of symbolizing; man is defined as the symbol-using (and -misusing) animal. The critic's job becomes one of the interpreting human symbolizing wherever he finds it, with the aim of illuminating human motivation. Thus the reach of the literary critic now extends to the social and ethical.

A Grammar of Motives is a "methodical meditation" on such complex linguistic forms as plays, stories, poems, theologies, metaphysical systems, political philosophies, constitutions. A Rhetoric of Motives expands the field to human ways of persuasion and identification. Persuasion, as Burke sees it, "ranges from the bluntest quest of advantage, as in sales promotion or propaganda, through courtship, social etiquette, education, and the sermon, to a 'pure' form that delights in the process of appeal for itself alone, without ulterior purpose. And identification ranges from the politician who, addressing an audience of farmers, says, 'I was a farm boy myself,' through the mysteries of social status, to the mystic's devout identification with the sources of all being."

*6 Gaston Bachelard's "The Poetics of Space" (La Poétique de l'Espace, 1958) is a phenomenological interrogation into the meaning of spaces which preoccupy poetry, intimate spaces such as a house, a drawer, a night dresser and spaces of wide expansion such as vistas and woods. In the opening chapter of The Poetics of Space, Bachelard places special emphasis on the interior domestic space and its component: the various rooms and the different types of furniture in it. Bachelard attempts to trace the reception of the poetic image in the subjective consciousness, a reception which demands, so Bachelard holds, great openness and a focus on the present experience while eliminate transient time.

The house is, for Bachelard, the quintessential phenomenological object, meaning that this is the place in which the personal experience reaches its epitome. Bachelrad sees the house as a sort of initial universe, asserting that "all really inhabited space bears the essence of the notion of home" (The Poetics of Space, p.5). Bachelard proceeds to examine the home as the manifestation of the soul through the poetic image and literary images which are found in poetry. He examines locations in the house as places of intimacy and memory which are manifested in poetry.

Bachelard explains his focus on the poetic image for it being the property of the innocent consciousness, something which precedes conscious thought, does not require knowledge and is the direct product of the heart and soul. This direct relation of poetry to reality, for Bachelard,

28

intensifies the reality of perceived objects ("imagination augments the values of reality", The Poetics of Space, p.3). Poetry, Bachelrad holds, is directed at one and the same time both inwards and outwards, thus establishing his future discussion of inside and outside which is so familiar to anyone dealing with the theory of space.

Bachelard determines that the house has both unity and complexity, it is made out of memories and experiences, its different parts arouse different sensations at yet it brings up a unitary, intimate experience of living. Such experiential qualities are what Bachelard finds it the poetry and prose he analyzes. Home objects for Bachelard are charged with mental experience. A cabinet opened is a world revealed, drawers are places of secrets, and with every habitual action we open endless dimensions of our existence.

In "The Poetics of Space" Bachelard introduces his concept of topoanlysis, which he defines as the systematic psychological studying of the sites of our intimate lives. The house, the most intimate of all spaces, "protects the daydreamer" and therefore understanding the house is for Bachelard a way to understand the soul.

29