<< back    << paluu

Introduction of the book Genuine Curiosity: The Voices of Tom Andersen, Harlene Anderson and Michael White. To be realeased in Fall 2010 by Routledge.

Contributers
About Tom

Harlene Anderson tells us how once in an interview Tom was asked: “How would you like people to see you and talk about you?” Tom answered: “Please pay attention to the words and the work, do not pay attention to me as a person. Please be careful and do not say ´Tom Andersen developed the reflecting teams´; it was not me. I was fortunate enough to find good friends and colleagues with whom I could converse and they became part of flow of ideas and the context. I rather be seen as an “invisible” and “unheard” person. I am always looking for a larger context” (Anderson, 2005).

He writes in an article: “A person takes part in the world as a being. Not the noun Being, but the verb Being: Being-in-the-world, which is: Being-in-(bodily)movements, being-in-language, being-in-conversations, being-in-relationships (being-with-others), being-in-culture, being-in-time (being-in-history), being-in-nature, etc. The change is to be differently in either: movements or language or conversations or relationships” (Andersen, 1997, p.126). He writes further: “ I have to wait and see how the other responds to what I say or do before I say or do the next thing. The next thing I say or do must be influenced by the other´s response to what I just said. The actions are not shaped by any theories or hypotheses, but by a dialogical process”. He describes how each of the voices in therapy is given a “home” and how they coexist side by side dialogically “as in every peacework” (Andersen, 1997, p. 130).

In the work of Andersen, Anderson and White, one can see a shift from a psychology of entities to a psychology of movement and dialogue. Self, other and relationship are no longer clearly separated entities but mutually forming processes. Self, other and relations are always in making or self and other form a relational unity in ongoing construction in relational processes. In these dialogical, collaborative and narrative approaches, the focus of therapy is on the interanimating process by which the self and the other are mutually authored in and through conversation. Representations of the “other” are contained and located within our “selves”. In this view, there can be no “I” without the “other”, and no “other” without the “I”, and it is language that makes that so. In a genuine dialogue the quality of the relational space is the key to emergences and openings. It is interesting to notice how this resembles Thich Nhat Hanh´s articulation of interbeing, a word that describes the interdependence and interconnectedness of all existence, the fact that “everything is in everything else” (Nhat Hanh, 1987).

In the interview Tom did with Per Jensen, just before he died in May 2007, he calls the turning points in his career  “crossroads”, because he was uncertain of to what extent it was his own choise or just to give something up. “The shifts of of life around me come by themselves, not by me. The only thing I can do is to take part in them” (Andersen, 2007, p.171). Tom lived within a time and space of now that manifested a readiness to respond – after a pause, after a moment of inner dialogue – in a fitting manner to what ever might happen. We can find the first step towards this kind of living, of living ´in a moment´, as arising out of very special attitude, a felt need to be in a certain kind of selflessly sensitive relationship with surroundings, with both the others and the otherness in them, and be able to answer to the calls that come to us in within those relationships (Shotter, 2007)

Tom´s way to be in the relational space was a way to avoid locking into preconceptional and fixed ideas that can close off the new possibilities arising in the therapeutic encounter. The mutuality of presense that constitutes relational mindfulness transcends intersubjectivity and moves into realm of interbeing, where seeing and being are seen complete a circuit of reciprocity, a reciprocity of presense. Mishka Lysack describes this kind of dialogue to be an exterior form of mindfulness, a special kind of awareness that is a basic element in the ancient wisdom traditions (Lysack, 2008).

The way Tom sees himself is as empty of Tom or as having no self in an egoistic way. This kind of way to be isn´t full of his own thoughts, full of activities of his own devises. When one lives this way the what is “out there” and what is “in here” are completely “in touch” with each other. It is when we fill our body-minds with our own deliberate thoughts about this or about that, that we restrict its ability to be responsive whatever might happen around us.

When the selves are full, there are vast chasms that separate people. When selves are empty, arising in response to immediate experience, we are all intimately connected to that well from which all experience comes – the “singularity” that cosmologists tell us created a universe from nothing. Looking deeply into emptiness reveals that “each can only inter-be with all the others” (Rosenbaum & Dyckman, 1996). The therapists creates himself or herself creating the client, and the client creates himself or herself creating the therapist. When identity is empty, people encountering each other have a direct experience, in which each other realizes his or her self in the other, the other in his or her self, the other in the other, and the self in the self. When therapist and client meet there is no need to worry about “self” and “other”. Once freed from clinging to the illusory fixed identity, self and world arise to meet and actualize each other, and therapy becomes spontaneous activity. In such spontaneous activity, we rediscover the wonderful joy of a natural interconnectedness.

Tom´s way to be in a therapeutic relationship evokes the presence of lovingkindness within a dialogic space, thereby providing a relational context for the healing. Relational presense is a ground of not causing harm, a sense of clear seeing with respect and compassion for what it is we see. “Therapeutic love” could be the term to describe this kind of ethical stance. It is a relational stance that is the opposite of “therapeutic violence”. Therapeutic violence takes place in therapy when practitioners impose their will or world perspective on the client in any manner. To prevent this Tom emphazises the meaning of pauses in the therapeutic practice.

“We are to be aware of three kind of pauses: (a) the one that comes after exhaling before the next inspiration starts, (b) the one that comes after the person has spoken and thinks to herself of what she just said, and (c) the pause that comes when a reflecting talk occurs, whwn what was said becomes talked of once more and thereby thought of once more, maybe even in a new way.” (Andersen, 2007, p.92)

When we are able to respond effortlessly, appropriately, compassionately, and selflessly to the needs of the situation from this space of being, it most effectively contribute to the well-being of others and our selves.

About Harlene 

Some years ago I (TM) had a possibility to interview Harlene Anderson. I was curious to ask her what values does dialogue express in her work and life. She answered:

“Well, dialogue is a word or a concept that I use to identify a particular
kind of process in therapy that in my experience is an inherently generative
process. It is something that clients and therapists are doing and are engaged
in together. A possibility for something new is inherited in that mutual process.
It´s a way of talking with each other in which there is more possibility that
something will emerge from that conversation that neither person could have
brought in independently. It´s the back and forth, the criss-crossing, and the
combining what you are creating together. Moving in the direction of
conversation and dialogue originally came out of our readings and
understandings of language and hermeneutics.”
(Anderson, 2004, p.73)

Harlene offers us a stance for engaging in the therapeutic relationship as well as a way of expanding our understanding of what we mean by the therapeutic relationship. She is not emphasizing a particular technique or method but rather a way of thinking about knowledge, language and therapeutic process, an orientation to therapeutic process that provileges what is happening in the conversation. The focus is on dialogue, not on people, situations, or problems. It positions the therapist in on open manner to any method of therapy. This different way of being in relationship, this kind of talking which dissolves not only what you talk about but also the way you talk about it, is the essense of the collaborative approach. It aims to create a space and to facilate a process in which unworkable problematic situations or narratives can be transformed into workable ones with possibilities. And, once this happens, problems begin often to dissolve.

Harlene makes no attempt to act in a particular manner beyond remaining responsive to
the interactive moment. An impetus for her work is to find ways of talking that alert people to the possibility of the unknown, of suprises, of the newness. In any given moment, there are multiple resources for action, and each of these resources has the potential to generate wholly different realities, possibilities, and constraints. Learning to move in and out of these possibilities develops a stance that marks collaborative therapy. While working collaboratively the therapist is relationally engaged by focusing attention on the conversational process of all those involved (rather than on individuals, objects, problems, or specific strategies). During this process we can not “know” what forms of relational engagement (what spesific actions) will contribute to therapeutic change. The main premise is that meaning is not an individual phenomenon. It is not located in the private mind of a person, nor it is unilaterally determined by one person. Meaning is an achievement of people coordinating their activities together, and it is always transformed in relationships.

When therapy is understood as a conversational process, we can never be certain where it will go. Ironically, one of the very qualities we are trained to develop – certainty – inhibits often our ability to move beyond conflict and discord toward transforming dialogic possibilities. Certainty also separates participants by establishing levels of expertise.
We could call this kind of uncertainty generative because it positions therapist and client in a therapeutic relationship that is responsive to the interactive moment. The therapist is not burdened with being “right” but with being present and responsive. Operating from a position of knowing independently predetermines the possibilities and destroyes the codevelopment of new meaning through the stories and narratives generated in therapy. Our attemps to be good professionals actually can prohibit our ability to be relationally responsive (as professionals) in our conversations with clients. In her book Conversation,
Language, and Possibilities Harlene writes:

“I do not think myself as a master consultant or therapist who
participates from a metaposition, has priviledged knowledge,
or has better ideas. I see myself as a guest who drops in on an
ongoing conversation. I emphasize that I want only to join the
conversation, not to interrupt it or change its course”
(Anderson, 1997,p. 167).

According to the tradition of the dialogic philosophy certainty and orthodoxy belong to the sphere of violent and not appreciative thinking. In this tradition, living in the uncertainty is seen as a human factor with ethical value.

  The philosophical stance of collaborative approach takes us beyond the view of narrative therapy as storytelling and story making and the self as a narrator. Because unless we extend this view, we succumb to the risk and concerns assosiated with modernist objectivity; who chooses and who directs the story to be told, how it is told, and what emerges from it. The way we participate as professionals in this narrating process, our position in it and our mode of action, marks the distinction between a modern and a postmodern process. Language is never a representation of the world as it is but is, a creation of the world as we construct it. Our questions always communicate something about us and what we think; they participate in the construction of their own answers. Questioning is seen as forming. Good questions are those that help to enlarge possible worlds and possible ways of being in relationship.

Harlene´s colleague, John Shoter, wants to “reconstruct psychology as a moral science of action (and agency) rather than a natural science of behaviour” and he captures the interminacy of meaning, whenever someone asks him what he means. He responds, “I don´t know. We haven´t finnished talking yet!” (McNamee, 2004, p.15). In the “spontaneous living responsivity” of collaborative practice the therapist and client construct a discursive domain where the interaction departs from the cultural expectations of therapeutic conversations (i.g. therapist as diagnostic expert). Here, the therapist and client work together to create a conversational space where the therapist´s role as expert is not central. “I do not believe that I can teach a person to be a therapist - can you learn someone how to be? -  but I can create a space and foster a generative conversational process in which he or she can learn to be”, says Harlene (Anderson, 2007, p. 47). Knowledge is simply a way of being. Because we cannot image a human being that would exist without knowing anything, we can say that knowing means simply being. Thus the increasing of knowledge means the increasing of being. One cannot transfer knowledge because no one can transfer being to an other person.

A philosophical stance in collaborative approach positions us to view therapeutic process as a conversation or dialogue. This stance is very liberating because when we become curious, as opposed to judgmental, about how people engage with each other, we open ourselves to the consideration of alternatives. Doing therapy is also a continuing self-education experience in which the practice of therapy itself is a source of renewal for a therapist as  well. (Malinen & Thomas, 2009). This sourse is a critical distinction between those professionals, who get bored or burned out by their work and those who do not. The traditional idea of learning is based on the assumption that an independent reality exist, a reality about which we can obtain objective knowledge with the help of scientific methods. The traditional mission of language is to re-present, to describe this reality with as much accuracy as possible, and to transfer that knowledge from one person to another. In other words, knowledge is something independent that exist outside of us, a sort of “thing” that we can move into the storage memory of a person. In this dualistic mindset, another person is an object outside of us who we can explore objectively. An example of this is the diagnostic culture, which often reifies a human being into an object without conciousness. The therapist is an “expert” who has the heavy responsibility for seeing that the therapy process proceeds in the “correct” way. For well-being of the therapist, it makes a great deal of difference how we have tuned in to percieve and experience this moment we call therapy. In the dualist world where subject and object are separated, we might only experience therapy from the mode of doing: doing diagnoses, doing hypotheses, doing evaluations, doing questions,  doing long days while doing therapy and so on. Our self appreciation is linked only to our achiements.We are inadequate the way we are and detached from the natural perfection of being. In a non-dualistic world where Self-Other dualism is collapsed we can experience our work also from the mode of being: we are our words, we are our cestures, we are the conciousness that watches the world with the help of our gaze at the moment. We are resting in our practice and also making a difference. This is what Harlene Anderson mostly do in her work.

About Michael

I (SC) am endeavoring to introduce Michael White, one of the three main contributors to this book, a friend, and colleague who passed away suddenly from a heart attack during the editing process.  It is with enduring sadness and profound respect that I begin this short introduction to Michael’s legacy and love for what he did.  Because of the vast resource of ideas Michael has left with us, I can’t possibly speak to all relevant domains of his contribution to therapeutic conversations and community practice.   My intent is to share with you a broad overview that leads towards and provides a foundation for the contribution he has made to this book.  

Michael White from Adelaide South Australia along with his cherished friend and colleague David Epston in Auckland New Zealand began a relationship of influence, intellectual exchange, and profound exploration that came to move away from the traditions of family therapy to spawn narrative therapy. Many credit their collaboration for the resource of diverse ideas that have contributed to narrative practice.  Together they describe the atmosphere that typified their unique contribution to therapeutic practice. 

“One of the aspects associated with this work that is of central importance to us is the spirit of adventure. We aim to preserve this spirit, and know that if we accomplish this our work will continue to evolve in ways that are enriching to our lives, and to the lives of those persons who seek our help” (White & Epston, 1992, p. 9).

Michael seemed to live and breathe this spirit of adventure in life and practice.  He loved to swim, bike, and fly.  He loved working with people and exuded warmth and fascination with the details of people’s acts of living. He especially loved working with children.
He read widely and far outside traditions of psychology. He drew from a wide range of post-modernist philosophical ideas. The ideas he collected were fused into his theory of practice and used to describe what he was doing in therapeutic conversations.  Michael was drawn to many different realms of thought from anthropology, ethnography, to philosophy. These influences are evidenced in the co-authored book Narrative Means To Therapeutic Ends (1990); a book through which many were first introduced to narrative practice.  In this first book much of the foundation of thought informing narrative practice is articulated.  Michael and co-author David Epston write how they draw from the text analogy noting, “…that persons give meaning to their lives and relationships by storying their experience and that, in interacting with others in the performance of these stories, they are active in the shaping of their lives and relationships” (1990, p.13). This premise of narrative therapy that people are interpretive beings constantly trying to make sense of life’s events by situating them into stories about their life and themselves remains key to narrative practice.

All people have stories about their lives and who they are in the world. No single story however, can represent the totality of life and identity as our lives are multi-storied with many possible stories about the same events. There are many events that live outside the problem saturated dominant stories but have been overshadowed, taken for granted, or not noticed as significant.   Michael, with his interest in detail and the events of people’s lives that were outside the more dominant problemtized accounts, developed curiosity around the multiple stories of people’s lives.

He listened for unique outcomes and initiatives that people had taken that fit more closely with their preferences for their life.  Through inquiry these events could be further languaged into existence and brought into alternate stories lines. This process is referred to as re-storying.  It’s a collaborative practice as the person consulting the therapist remains the primary author while the therapist asks questions that assist them to move from the known and familiar accounts of their lives towards what is possible to know and do and fits more closely with the persons preferences for life. 

Michael had a passion for questioning the ‘taken for granted’ and great ethical concern for how to participate in therapeutic conversations.  Influenced by French Philosopher Michelle Foucault (1979, 1980, 1984), Michael crafted a narrative approach sensitive to how power and normative expectations operate in people’s lives, shape their lives, and can constrain possibility.  He developed practices such as externalizing conversations (White, Epston 1990) that locate problems outside of people as opposed to inside or as representing their identity.  This is a very different way of thinking about and talking about problems that serves to deconstruct marginalizing, oppressive, normalizing truths. It’s a way of talking about problems that while serious, is engaging, at times fun, and freeing from problemetized identity claims.

With this practice of externalizing internalized discourse Michael also brought into view the ‘small p’ political aspects of the work.  Externalizing is in many ways a counter-cultural practice and as such is political in assisting people to free themselves from the effects of modern power, normalizing judgments, and the pathologizing of life and expressions of life.  Whether the talking metaphor was about out sneaking the sneaky poo (White, 1989), the naughty little phobia (White & Morgan, 2006), fear busting and monster taming (White 1985), or putting AHD in it’s proper place (White 2007) Michael engaged in a practice that made it possible for people to redefine their relationship with the problem and revise their identity in a way that opened possibilities and proposals for action.   

Michael was not only a great therapist, he was also an exceptional teacher of his practice.  He made often-complex theory and meticulous practice accessible to others through live demonstration, clear didactic, compelling stories, and humour.  Michael seemed to find geographic metaphors useful to describe his work.  In articulating what he was doing in his conversations he began to utilize the ‘map’ metaphor. Throughout his career he developed several conversation maps that would assist the conversational journey.  These are succinctly brought together in his last book Maps Of Narrative Practice (2007).  Michael contends that these maps are not strict steps or rigid guides to be followed in conversations but rather aids to assist one from getting lost in content and to assist the collaboration to move to other territories of thought and action. 
Michael’s more recent work drew from the Russian Developmental Psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1986) lending the ‘scaffolding conversations’ metaphor, the zone of proximal development metaphor, and ideas about concept development.  These metaphors seemed to provide Michael with a way to concretely articulate his practices, the social and relational aspect of those practices, as well as the intimate link to the development of personal agency in narrative practice (White & Morgan, 2006, White, 2007).  It is in the exploration and adaptation of Vygotsky’s ideas that Michael’s chapter in this book is situated, archiving his careful and thorough efforts to describe his evolving practice and style.   

Introduction

The unique gathering of Tom, Harlene and Michael took place in Hämeenlinna, Finland at the Commond Ground - Versatile Practices Conference where they came together to present their ideas and practices in June 2004.
                      Contributing further to the richness of their stories are the reflections of professor Jaakko Seikkula and an international group of colleagues. Jaakko is known internationally as one of the developers of a highly successful approach for working with psychosis known as Open Dialogue Treatment. The members of the international reflective group are John Gurnaes, a family therapist from Dispuk, Denmark and Yishai Shalif, a senior school psychologist and narrative therapist from Jerusalem, Israel. With the curiosity and interest the reflectors invite the masters into dialogue, serving to draw out ideas about Wittgenstein, dialogue, philosophical stance and the scaffolding metaphor among other ideas.  These reflections are like invitations to continue to refine the ideas and to continue to strive for knowledge. 
                      As a fitting beginning Tom Andersen invites us along to navigate the ‘forks in the road’ he faced in his emerging career.  However as you read on the significance of these ‘forks’ becomes clear by their immense influence on the field.  In particular Tom outlines the shift from either/or thinking to both/and while sharing how physical therapists Aadel Bülof-Hansen and Gudrun Øvreberg touched his thinking and practice.  You will get the sense of the very personal contribution these women made to his thinking serving as the catalysts for the early part of his journey.  Tom further gives us a glimpse into the emergence of the reflecting team concept.  This is an idea and practice that begun to level the hierarchy between therapist and client and that later contributes to Michael Whites pursuit of outsider witnessing practices.  Its an example of the generative influence of such striking and yet risky ideas for their time. 
                      Through a touching transcript of a session with a mother and nineteen year old daughter, Tom almost slows time as he introduces us to his practices in action.  With micro-attention to language and curiosity that allows him to take his time, the reader is introduced to how ‘words are like universes traveling by’.  For Tom, words have many meanings in them, even big stories, and landscapes, which he dawdles in seeking rich meaningful connections with others.  He listens to every word to see how the words affect the other person.  Tom’s practices of language are a central part of his life work.  
          Harlene’s voice then takes centre stage as she paints the picture of her experiences in collaboration with women in Bosnia.  However those experiences are first firmly planted on a rich philosophical foundation that permeates her practices.  For Harlene the idea that conversation need to be dialogic is heart felt.  She notes they are a shared inquiry about the issues at hand- jointly examining, questioning, thinking and reflecting.  You will sense the importance of trust and respect in her words and practices.  As she outlines the aspects of her philosophical stance ideas about the mutually transformative aspects of conversations, the not-knowing curiosity, and conversational partners begin to shape what will capture you in her story of time in Bosnia.  Today these concepts continue to add a great deal to the field and to the lives of those who consult therapists. 
                      Entering Bosnia begins a touching recount of Harlene and her colleague Patricia Blakeney’s ability to be present to the needs and wants of women working in a non-governmental organisation.  In the face of hopelessness and through genuine openness and connection they begin to centre the voice and local knowledge of these women, honouring their pain and discouragement while, ever so gently, punctuating the beginnings of a plan for the future.   It is a touching example of her philosophy in action.
                      Fittingly Michael White, co-founder of the narrative therapy tradition contributes our last chapter, which is a clear example of the frontiers of collaborative post-modern therapies.  Through the introduction of the theory and application of Vygotskian ideas Michael excites the reader about what is possible to know and do in a therapeutic conversation.  He outlines the zone of proximal development and introduces the concept of scaffolding to assist people to traverse the distance from the known and familiar to what is possible to know.  These ideas and practices translate into concrete ways to sustain people’s initiatives in their lives, to bring them into prominence as a counter to problem stories and limiting identity conclusions. 
                      Michael masterfully demonstrates scaffolding distance conversations through the micro-analysis of a session with a young boy and his mother.  He will take you through the incremental crafting of his questioning that contributes to a significant distancing from the known ideas of a boy who was “generally considered incapable of reflecting on his life, unable to foresee the consequences of his actions, and relatively incapable of taking responsibility for his own life”.  Where they finish will not only in still hope but is a significant step into a different knowing that opens options for living, and brings for the wisdoms and skills of life the family has always utilized. 
                Throughout this book you will be inspired and touched not only by the main examples but also through the small detours each presenters adds.  These are detours and stop offs to reflect on each others practices, or to tell a short story of an meaningful time in their own professional and personal journey. 

References

Anderson, H. (2007) Tom David Andersen: Fragments of his Influence and Inspiration. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Oct.

Anderson, H. (2007) The Heart and Spirit of Collaborative Therapy: The Philosophical Stance – “A Way of being” in Relationship and Conversation. In Anderson, H. & Gehart, D. (Eds.) Collaborative Therapy. Relationships and Concersations that make a Difference. New York: Routledge.

Andersen, T. (1997) Researching client-therapist relationships: a collaborative study for informing therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 16(2), pp.125-133.

Andersen, T. (2007) Crossroads: Tom Andersen in conversation with Per Jensen. In Anderson, H. & Jensen, P. (Eds.) Innovationos in the Reflecting Process. Karnac, London.

Andersen, T. (2007) Human Participating: Human “being” Is the Step for Human “Becoming” in the Next Step, p. 92. In Anderson, h. & Gehart, D. (Eds.) Collaborative Therapy. Relationships and Conversations that make a Difference. New York: Routledge

Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Middlesex: Peregrine Books.

Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1986) The history of sexuality. Breat Britain: Peregrine Books.

Lysack, M.: Relational Mindfulness and Dialogical Space in Family Therapy. In Hick, S.F. & Bien, T. (Eds.) Mindfulness and the Therapeutic Relationship. Guilford Press, 2008.

McNamee, S.: Social Construction As Practical Theory: Lessons for Practice and Reflection in Psychotherapy. In Paré, D. & Larne, G.: Collaborative Practice in Psychology and Therapy. London: The Haworth Clinical Practice Press, 2004.

Nhat Hanh: Being Peace. Parallax Press, Berkeley, 1987.

Rosenbaum, R. & Dyckman, J.: No Self! No Problem! Actualizing Empty Self in Psychotherapy. In Hoyt, M. (Ed.) Constructive Therapies 2. The Guilford  Press, 1996.

Shotter, J.: Not to forget Tom Andersen´s way of being Tom Andersen: the importance of what “just happen” to us. Paper presented at The 12th International Meeting on the Treatment of Psychosis, August 29th, Palanga, Lithuania, 2007.

Vigotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

White, M. (1985) “Fear busting and monster taming: An approach to the fears of young children.” Dulwich Centre Review, pp. 29-34. Republished 1989 White, M.: Selected Papers (chapter 10), pp. 107-113. Adelaide; Dulwich Centre Publications.

White, M. (1989) Pseudo-encopresis: From avalanche to victory, from vicious to virtuous cycles. In Selected Papers. Adelaide Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications. (pp. 115-124) Original work published in 1984, Family Systems Medicine, 2(2).

White, M. (2007) Maps of Narrative Practice. New York: W.W. Norton.

White, M. & Epston, D. (1990) Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York: W.W. Norton.

White, M. & Epston, D. (1992) Introduction. Experioence, contradiction, narrative & imagination: Selected Papers od David Epston and Michael White.

White, M. & Morgan, A. (2006) narrative Therapy With Children and Their Families. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.

Preface:

While editing this book, two of its protagonists, Tom Andersen and Michael White died. Tom In May 2007 from injuries when he fell on the rocky Norwegian coust while walking his dog Chico and Michael in April 2008 from a heart attack he suffered at a restaurant in the evening after a workshop in San Diago.

Together with Harlene Anderson these premiere master therapists have shaped the landscapes of therapeutic practice that have come to be known as dialogical, collaborative and narrative therapies. Although having their own diverse approaches, they share a common genuine curiosity for meaning as relational practice. Where the purpose of modernist theory and practice are to solve problems, cure illness, and achieve scientific advancement, one purpose of the work of these three contributors is to critically explore that sort of social life becomes possible when one way of talking and acting is employed versus another. Within a format that not only allowed them to share their journeys and practices but to reflect on each others offerings, what emerges is a glimpse into their wisdom, compassion, and skill that has invited professionals world wide to seek their teaching.

In their work many taken for granted thoughts and practices are challenged by a more relational framework. For example, the dominant notions of “self” and “individuality” as key elements of emotional health are replaced with connection as one important feature of psychological well-being.

Our skill to see processes, or unities of process-and-product, has not developed because we are socialized in the Western culture to see only products (things, behaviours, objects, results). For example, we tend to see, experience and respond to this introduction as a product and not as a moment in an ongoing process (or many processes) that includes the human history of writing, literacy, education, research, history of each specific reader of these words, and so on. We tend also to see, experience and respond to people as products (identities, labels) rather than as ongoing processes. Yet, each one of us is, at every moment, both being and becoming. Each one of us is constantly under one basic characteristic of our existence, impermanence.

Our wish is that this book could be an example of the process orientation in the work of these master therapists, and how we on the field together with Harlene – and you as a reader of this book – have all the time the precious opportunity to be part of the life in the death of Michael and Tom.

<< back    << paluu