Discussion

Chapter 18

Narrative Therapy

J. Christopher Hall

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

•understand the historical development of narrative therapy (NT),

•understand the guiding theory of NT,

•understand the stages of NT,

•understand how NT is used in a case,

•integrate narrative into the generalist-eclectic approach, and

•evaluate the strengths and limitations of NT.

INTRODUCTION

When people consult therapists they tell stories. People don’t come along and say “depression.” Rather, they say, “I’ve been feeling depressed lately and it’s something that has been getting worse. If I think back over the last 3 or 4 years I can pinpoint some events which have contributed to this. Let me tell you about them.…” People are pretty specific about how these events of their lives are linked to each other in sequence…. Engaging with the narrative metaphor in the development of therapeutic practice invites us to think about how can we encourage people to do what they routinely do—to place the events of their lives into storylines—but in relation to some of the more neglected events of their lives. This opens possibilities for the further development of therapeutic practices that are more de-centring of the therapist and centring of the meaning-making skills of people who consult us. This has been one of the big attractions for me about the narrative metaphor. (White, 2001, p. 11*)

Narrative therapy (NT) was developed by Michael White and David Epston in the mid 1980s as a way to honor the indigenous and innate knowledges of the people with whom they work. White and Epston envisioned a model of practice that did not impose ideas of mental illness or solutions onto people; rather, an approach that was rooted in a practice of cultural ethics in which social power dynamics could be explored to assist people to regain power over their narratives and recapture their preferred ways of being in their worlds (White & Epston, 1990). At its most basic, a narrative is a story that can be defined as a series of events, linked in sequence, through time, according to a specific plot (Bruner, 1991).

White and Epston proposed that from a narrative perspective, how we come to understand ourselves is through stories. The past exists as a memory in story form with some events remembered or privileged, and some events forgotten or marginalized. Identities are built on privileged events in our lives, and these events are put together in sequence to form a plot. This plot is an identity. For example, if a question were asked about how you are as a student or professional, you would think back to past life events that would support your idea and then tell a story of those events around the conclusion that you have drawn about yourself. What can be problematic is when, due to power differentials in culture, family, or social systems of which we are all a part, we are not able to decide which events in our lives are marginalized or privileged, nor the meanings that will be ascribed to these events. In these cases, the result may be the development of a story of self that is problem saturated. We may come to see ourselves as problematic, recruited into a problematic narrative in which we may define ourselves as abnormal, failures, or at worst disordered in comparison to an internalized view of a normative self (Hall, 2012).

At its basic, a narrative approach helps to make visible the meanings that have been applied to our clients’ lives, explore power dynamics that may have contributed to these meanings, deconstruct power, and create definitional space for clients to restory and redefine who they are. During therapeutic conversations, the problem-saturated story can be challenged and new preferred stories generated and performed by noticing and more fully narrating moments (thickening the story) in which clients have been able to better manage the influence of problematic stories. Clients may also be engaged in externalizing problematic stories, a therapeutic conversation that seeks to separate the person from the problem by objectifying and at times personifying the problem as an external oppressive entity. As clients author stories that support their preferred identities, relationships, and lives, they are invited and encouraged to share their stories with others in their community, which enlists the support of others who may join them in a shared purpose to challenge unfair, harmful, and unjust social discourses (Morgan, 2000). Therefore, “All narrative work is social justice work in that it always has the intent of countering and under-mining the marginalization that can happen in pathology-based approaches to ‘mental health’” (Combs & Freedman, 2012, p. 1041).

OVERVIEW OF NARRATIVE THERAPY

The freedom to explore new ideas and practices outside the dominance of established therapy schools led White and Epston (1990) to organize the development of NT on the “text analogy” (p. 9). The text analogy, adopted from social sciences critique of modernism’s claim that humans can have objective knowledge of the world, proposes that since stories are always interposed between people and the world “out there,” stories select, organize, and construct the meanings of a person’s lived experiences. A story is a preexisting interpretive framework or “procrustean bed” formed from the broader sociocultural context into which people are born and live their lives. In Greek mythology, Procrustes, using the size of his iron bed as a “one size fits all” norm, forced people to conform to the size of his iron bed by stretching them if they were too short or chopping off their legs if too tall. Similarly, as stories become reified and harden into preexisting iron-like structures, they also become unquestioned “one-size-fits-all” truths that have the power to constitute or shape people’s lives (notice how knowledge and power are inextricably linked in the Procrustes myth and the text analogy). This means that as stories constitute or shape our identities and lives, we actually “become the narratives by which we ‘tell about’ our lives” (Bruner, 1987, p. 15). However, stories are not individual achievements; they are intertwined with the stories of others and the preexisting narratives of our sociocultural context. Therefore, stories are also a form of social control. This relationship of narratives and social control is further highlighted by White (1987), when he suggests that narratives are a

particularly effective system of discursive meaning production by which individuals can be taught to live … an unreal but meaningful relation to the social formations in which they are indentured to live out their lives and realize their destinies as social subjects. (p. 80)

In constituting or establishing an organized existence, stories are helpful for providing meaning and continuity to life experiences but are unable to completely “encompass the full richness of lived experiences” (White & Epston, 1990, p. 11). These unnoticed and unstoried aspects of lived experiences are obscured and subjugated by the foreground of preexisting dominant stories and relegated to the background of the unstoried and untold, which when awakened by being noticed have the potential to provide “a rich and fertile source for the generation, or re-generation of alternative stories” (White & Epston, 1990, p. 15).

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Influences on the Ideas and Practices of White and Epston

Before meeting in person at the Second Australian Family Therapy Conference held in Adelaide in 1981 and starting their intellectual partnership, both White and Epston were already utilizing similar ideas and practices in their work. Describing his attendance of Epston’s conference workshop in 1981, White stated that he immediately “recognized certain correspondences in our respective ideas and practices” (White & Epston, 1990, p. xv), especially their corresponding use of Bateson’s “restraint of redundancy” (i.e., a network of beliefs/presuppositions that constitute people’s “maps” of the world). White’s (1984, 1985, 1986a, 1986b) early work was heavily influenced by Bateson’s (1972, 1979) ideas of negative explanation, restraint, and news of difference.

Epston, trained as an anthropologist and social worker and already well known as a creative therapist and writer in New Zealand (Epston, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1989), had also been influenced by Gregory Bateson and Milton Erickson. After meeting at the 1981 conference, White and Epston collaborated extensively and conducted workshops on applying Bateson’s ideas to therapy (White, 2009). However, during the late 1980s, Epston began to reimagine his work by moving toward a “text/story” metaphor and encouraged White’s interest in this metaphor. White (2001) described this transitional time:

In the later 1980s, I began to relate more significantly to the narrative metaphor. This was partly due to Cheryl White’s encouragement of me to privilege this metaphor in my work, which in turn was informed by her engagement with feminist writings. This interest in the narrative metaphor was also something that came out of my collaboration with David Epston. (p. 134)

White and Epston, influenced by Bateson’s interpretive method, which proposed that “all knowing requires an act of interpretation” (White & Epston, 1990, p. 2), and the narrative metaphor (Geertz, 1983, 1986; Goffman, 1974), concluded that direct knowledge of the world is not possible. In other words, stories or “interpretive frameworks” are always interposed between people and events and determine which events can be selected and what meaning can be made of these events. Therefore, just as the meaning of a “text” emerges as a “reader” interacts with a written “text,” the meaning of an event or a person only emerges as a person’s story selects, interacts with, and interprets the event or person. By embracing these ideas, along with Foucault’s (1979, 1980, 1982; Foucault & Rabinow, 1984) analysis of discourse and power, White and Epston (1990) situated the development of NT among numerous transdisciplinary critiques of modernism that emerged in the mid-20th century (e.g., interpretive anthropology, linguistic philosophy, poststructuralism, postmodernism, literary criticism, and social constructionism). Although originating in different fields of study and differing in important ways, these transdisciplinary critiques bear a strong family resemblance and are united in challenging the philosophical assumptions and claims of modernism and its kin (structuralism, essentialist self, and correspondence theory of truth). In order to better understand these critiques, especially those associated with poststructuralism, the philosophical assumptions and claims of modernism and its kin will be described and their influence on psychology, social work, and counseling examined.

Philosophical Assumptions and Claims of Modernism

Modernism’s philosophical assumptions centered around the claim that “objects” (e.g., reality, nature, universe, and other humans) exist independent of human observation and have an inherent structure composed of specific qualities or properties (structuralism) that are governed by universal laws discoverable through observation, reason, and the scientific method. Separated from nature and community, humans are conceived as discrete beings capable of stepping outside of their sociocultural context and able to analyze “objects” objectively outside the constraints of time and space (Robbins, 2005). Conceived in this way, the human self is constituted as being autonomous, coherent, and universal (i.e., existing independent of historical period, culture, and society) and endowed with reason, consciousness, and the ability to self-reflect. Thus constituted, the essentialist self is equipped to use reason and the positivistic methods of science to objectively arrive at universally true facts about the structure of the universe, nature, people, and society. Once these universal laws governing the structure of the universe, people, and society are discovered, they can be used to unlock nature’s secrets and predict/control humans and their social systems, thereby producing human/social progress and possibly even the perfection of humans and their social institutions. The language of the essentialist self is considered to be rational and transparent in that it represents or mirrors reality as it objectively exists (correspondence theory of truth).

The philosophical assumptions and claims of modernism and its kin created a knowledge/power hierarchy that legitimated and privileged objective knowledge and those who possessed it over other types of knowledge (e.g., contextual knowledge, stories based on lived experiences). As those trained in academic disciplines rooted in and founded on modernism’s assumptions and claims became enshrined at the apex of the knowledge/power hierarchy, they were anointed as authorities and experts who wielded the power of their objective knowledge over others. Interestingly, this included not only those trained in the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology) but also those trained in the social sciences (e.g., psychology, social work, counseling; Cushman, 1990; Gergen, 1985, 1991, 1992; Hoshmand & Polkinghorne, 1992; Slife, 1993; Toulmin, 1990).

Poststructuralism

Poststructuralism proposes that “objects” (e.g., reality, nature, universe, other humans), rather than having a universal structure existing independent of human observation, exist only to the extent that they are brought forth, interpreted, and storied via pre-existing interpretive frameworks or narratives. In other words, a human observer cannot become a disembodied supernatural entity who exists outside time/space and the influences of a sociocultural context, and uses “immaculate perception” to objectively analyze and discover the true essence or structure of “objects.” Without a universal inherent structure that can be discovered through observation, reason, and the methods of science, there is no fixed or objective meaning of self, reality, nature, the universe, or even lived experiences. Therefore, meaning is ambiguous as there are only interpretations that arise from the preexisting interpretive frameworks or narratives associated with different sociocultural contexts (Bateson, 1972, 1979; Bruner, 1986, 1991; Foucault, 1979, 1980, 1982; Foucault & Rabinow, 1984; Geertz, 1983). Poststructuralists also propose that since self and the broader sociocultural context are intertwined, a self is culturally and discursively constituted. This means that self is created in symbolic interaction with others within a network of cultural meanings and discursive practices. Since there are multiple contexts and discursive practices available, multiple selves emerge; selves are incomplete and always under construction as they are tailored and performed to fit many different contexts (Gergen, 1985, 1991, 1992). Therefore, poststructuralists

believe that it is useful to focus on contextualized meaning making, rather than on universal truths or an all-encompassing reality. In this meaning-focused approach, culture, language, and discourse are explored in terms of how they contribute to the experience and identity of people in context. Proponents of poststructuralism seek specific details of particular people’s experience. Lives are valued in terms of how they embody exceptions or uniqueness, rather than how they fit general categories. (Combs & Freedman, 2012, p. 1036)

In addition to meaning making, poststructuralists view narratives as “structures of power as well” (Bruner, 1986, p. 144), which means they inherently privilege some views over others (Bruner, 1991) and therefore are never objective. In pursuing this intertwining of narratives and power, White and Epston (1990) drew heavily from Foucault’s philosophical/historical approach to power and knowledge. Foucault’s (1965, 1973, 1979, 1980, 1982; Foucault & Rabinow, 1984) body of work mainly focuses on how sociocultural “discursive formations” (i.e., a set of fundamental assumptions that are so widely held and embedded in a sociocultural context, they are like water to fish—invisible) form an “epistemological unconscious” or Procrustean bed of “normalizing truths” that operate within specific historical periods or epochs. This means that since sociocultural “discursive formations” constitute “truth” claims about all aspects of life, they have the power to incite people to forge their bodies, identities, and lives to fit the requirements of these mostly unconscious and invisible sociocultural “normalizing truths” (Foucault, 1980; White & Epston, 1990). In describing this discursive process, White and Epston (1990) wrote:

According to Foucault, a primary effect of this power through “truth” and “truth” through power is the specification of a form of individuality, an individuality that is, in turn, a “vehicle” of power. Rather than proposing that this form of power represses, Foucault argues that it subjugates. It forges persons as “docile bodies” and conscripts them into activities that support the proliferation of “global” and “unitary” knowledges and, as well, the techniques of power. (p. 20)

As Foucault investigated and analyzed the complex relations between power and knowledge, he concluded that power and knowledge are inseparable and illustrated their inseparability by placing the terms together (power/knowledge; Foucault, 1980). In doing so, he drew attention to the power of these “normalizing truths” to not only constitute or shape lives but also conscript persons, as “vehicles” of power, into subjugating and policing themselves. Furthermore, he argues that since persons are born into and participate in historically situated social discourses or webs of invisible/unconscious “normalizing truths,” they actively participate in or stand with the power of a “regime of truth” to subjugate and colonize their lives.

Architectural Example of Poststructuralism: Bentham’s Panopticon

To illustrate these ideas, White and Epston (1990) used Foucault’s (1979) analysis of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, an architectural form Bentham created to represent the ideal and most efficient technique for social control. This technique of social control is based on objectifying, isolating, and recruiting persons into measuring and policing themselves against socially constructed and widely held “normalizing truths” that are maintained and advanced by “regimes of truth” (e.g., science, school and political systems, churches, and media). Architecturally simple, the Panopticon is a circular building of several stories with each story subdivided into small rooms that have only a rear window and a large window facing a courtyard that contains a watchtower or “inspection house” at its center. This structure allows the constant observation and scrutiny of persons isolated in each room by a guardian or guardians residing in the watchtower; however, guardians are never visible to persons isolated in each room. Therefore, those isolated have to assume they are constantly observed, scrutinized, and measured against the norms held by the institution as employed and enforced by the “gaze” of its guardians. Assuming they are always subjected to the “gaze” of the guardians, persons inhabiting the rooms would increasingly experience themselves as being subjugated and would become incited to scrutinize, measure, and police themselves against the “normalizing truths” conveyed by the ever present “gaze.” Foucault’s analysis of the Panopticon led discussions of power away from it being located in and used by specific people, groups, and social structures to coerce others. Instead, power was viewed as being everywhere, meaning it is diffused and embedded in social discourse or stories that have the power of the ever present “gaze” to not only constitute lives but also conscript persons, as “vehicles” of power, into subjugating and policing themselves.

Unwilling to stand with or participate in social discourse or stories claiming universal and objective “normalizing truths” that objectify, isolate, and recruit persons into measuring and policing themselves against socially constructed “normalizing truths,” White and Epston (1990) developed many counter ideas and practices, which are presented next.

CENTRAL THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTS AND KEY THERAPEUTIC PRACTICES/CONVERSATIONS

Central Theoretical Constructs

The central component of NT is NT’s first and foremost theoretical construct: the narrative metaphor, which proposes that since individual narratives are situated in and intertwined with the preexisting interpretive structures or cultural canonical forms of a broader social context and not constructed from “thin air,” they have the power to constitute and control people’s lives. Therefore, narratives are a form of social control, in that they provide a preexisting social discourse of culturally and scientifically sanctioned stories that have the power to recruit people into measuring and judging themselves against their normalizing “truths” (e.g., the meaning of lived experiences, what is good/bad, normal/abnormal). However, even in situations where people appear to have become totally dominated by cultural and scientific “truths,” narrative therapists assume that there are always lived experiences existing outside of these “truths” that have the potential to provide “a rich and fertile source for the generation, or re-generation of alternative stories” (White & Epston, 1990, p. 15).

Consistent with the narrative metaphor and in contrast to the essentialist self proposed by modernism/structuralism, NT views “identity as relational, distributed, performed, and fluid” (Combs & Freedman, 2012, p. 1042). Identity is relational in that it is brought forth in stories that are performed by persons and intertwined with stories performed by others existing within the sociocultural discourses of “truths” (e.g., family, schools, science, churches). Identity is also fluid, as these stories are in flux. This means that NT, by engaging clients in unmasking and examining the power of stories to constitute and support their problematic identities, relationships, and lives, is “inevitably engaged in a political activity … that challenges the techniques that subjugate persons to a dominant ideology” (White & Epston, 1990, p. 29). Finding many of Foucault’s ideas (e.g., power/knowledge, modern power, discursive formations) helpful in unmasking and taking apart (deconstructing) the power of narratives to conscript people into policing themselves against supposedly objective and universal “normalizing truths,” White and Epston developed therapeutic practices to destabilize these “taken-for-granted and routinely accepted” social discourses. In doing so, “new avenues of inquiry into the context of many of the problems and predicaments for which people routinely seek therapy” could be rendered “strange and exotic” (White, cited in Combs & Freedman, 2012, pp. 1039–1040).

Key Therapeutic Practices/Conversations

Different Relational Stances: Clients and Problems

In working with clients to develop stories that do not support problems, the preferred relational stance of narrative therapists differs from traditional therapeutic approaches with regard to persons and problems (White, 2007). Narrative therapists prefer a collaborative, respectful, and nonblaming stance that honors clients as the authors of and experts on their own lives (Morgan, 2000). This stance is described by Madsen (2007) as being an “appreciative ally” and by White (2007) as “decentered but influential” (p. 39). The therapist’s relational stance is decentered in NT in that clients are the authors of their own lives and it is influential since narrative therapists provide opportunities for clients “to define their own position in relation to their problems and to give voice to what underpins this position” (White, 2007, p. 39). Also in contrast to traditional therapeutic approaches, narrative therapists prefer to objectify, categorize, name, and at times even personify problems as oppressive entities (externalizing the problem; White, 1984; White & Epston, 1990).

Narrative Questions

Therapeutic inquiries/conversations are developed from a decentered but influential posture of curiosity, in which therapists carefully craft questions that invite and encourage clients to take center stage in using their own language to describe their lived experiences. Since narrative questions are asked to generate experiences and further conversation rather than used merely as a way to gather information (Freedman & Combs, 1996), they are believed to be therapeutic in that they can incite and stimulate clients to deconstruct problematic stories and author alternative stories that support preferred identities, relationships, and lives. The following categories and examples of narrative questions are commonly used in therapeutic inquiries/conversations (Madigan, 2011; Madigan & Goldner, 1998; White, 1988, 2005; White & Epston, 1990).

Mapping the Influences and Effects of the Problem Questions

These questions are designed to help everyone involved in therapy develop a mutual understanding of how the problem-saturated story that brings the client/couple/family to therapy has affected them across several broad domains of life (e.g., home, work, school, view of self/selves, relationships with family/friends/God, dreams, hopes, future possibilities). For example, in mapping the influences and effects of the problem with a couple who is dominated by arguments, the therapist might ask: “What influences in your lives have made it easier for the ‘arguments’ to get in between the two of you?” and “How have these ‘arguments’ affected … each of you? …. your relationship with each other? …. your view of yourself and your partner? … your hopes and dreams of a future together?”

Mapping the Tactics and Strategies of the Problem

Questions about the strategies and tactics of the problem invite clients to face and unmask how the problem-saturated story has come to dominate and restrain them from performing stories that would support more preferred ways of being, relating, and living. In facing and unmasking the problem’s strategies and tactics, clients are encouraged to explore the “life support” required by problem-saturated stories that allow the problem to continue to dominate their lives. Some strategies and tactics of the problem questions for the couple dominated by arguments might include: “How have the ‘arguments’ been able to grow and become so destructive to your relationship?” “What keeps the ‘arguments’ alive and growing more destructive?” “What thoughts, feelings, and behaviors seem to ‘feed’ the ‘arguments’ so that they get stronger and more destructive?” and “What seems to ‘feed’ the ‘arguments’ and make them worse?” As clients face and unmask the “life support” required by problem-saturated stories, they gradually become aware of how they and others contribute, many times inadvertently, to the life of the problem. With this awareness, clients may want to change their relationship to the problem by experimenting with ways of reducing or even removing “life support” from problem-saturated stories.

Mapping the Influence and Effects of Clients on the life of the Problem (Unique Accounts and Reauthoring Conversations)

Questions crafted to map the influence of clients on the life of the problem are based on the assumption that the problem-saturated story never totally dominates or speaks the absolute and unquestionable “truth” about the identities, relationships, and lives of clients. Based on this assumption, unique outcome questions are designed to encourage therapists and clients to notice actions and intentions that lead to moments in which clients and/or their relationships are able to influence the problem (Madigan, 2011; Madigan & Goldner, 1998; White & Epston, 1990). Unique account questions “use a grammar of agency and locate any unique outcome in its historical frame … linked in some coherent way to a history of struggle/protest/resistance to oppression by the problem or an altered relationship with the problem” (Madigan, 2011, p. 89). These questions are designed to invite and encourage clients to take unique outcomes or “sparkling moments” that are “out of phase” with their problem-saturated dominant story lines and use them as a “starting point for re-authoring conversations” (White, 2007, p. 61). As reauthoring conversations co-evolve between the client and the therapist, clients are invited “to stretch their minds, to exercise their imagination, and to employ their meaning making resources,” which enable them to “develop new initiatives in addressing the problems, predicaments, and dilemmas of their lives” (p. 62).

For the couple dominated by “arguments,” the following unique account questions could be asked to invite them to notice and story some of their “sparkling moments” and then use them as a starting point for reauthoring conversations: “Can you describe a time that you were able to reduce the intensity (frequency) of the ‘arguments’?” “Can you describe a time that the ‘arguments’ could have taken over but you refused to go along with it?” “Can you describe a time that you resisted the attempts by the ‘arguments’ to devalue you (or your relationships)?” “Can you describe a time you were able to talk with your partner in a way that the ‘arguments’ had a hard time butting in?” and “What does it mean about you and your relationship that you were able to keep the ‘arguments’ from butting in?”

Externalizing Conversations

White and Epston (1990) originally defined externalization as

an approach that encourages persons to objectify and, at times personify the problem that they experience as oppressive. In this process, the problem becomes a separate entity and thus external to the person or relationship that was ascribed the problem. Those problems that are considered to be inherent, as well as those relatively fixed qualities that are attributed to persons and to relationship, are rendered less fixed and less restricting. (p. 38)

In separating the problem from the person, White and Epston constructed an alternative discursive option; the person or relationship is not the problem, the problem is the problem. This discursive option encourages clients to separate their own identities from the problem (i.e., from being the problem to facing and changing their relationship to the problem). Consequently, as clients face and change their relationship to the problem by performing alternative stories that support their preferred identities, relationships, and lives, they assume and internalize more responsibility for themselves, their relationships, and their lives (Tomm, 1989).

To assist and encourage other therapists engaged in learning how to perform externalizing conversations, White (2007) reviewed and summarized the ideas that informed the development of this practice and proposed a map consisting of four categories of inquiry that describe how to engage and journey with clients in externalizing conversations. To initiate the externalizing journey, White negotiates an “experience near” description of the problem that uses the language of clients (rather than professional language) and is relevant to their sociocultural context of meanings and understandings. Second, he proposes questions to identify and map the influences and effects of the problem across various broad domains of the lives of clients (e.g., home, work, school, and view of self/selves, relationships with family/friends/God, dreams, hopes, and future possibilities). Third, he asks questions, such as “Are these activities okay with you?” “How do you feel about these developments?” and “Where do you stand on these outcomes?” Such questions invite and encourage clients to evaluate the “operations and activities of the problem, as well as its principal effects on their lives” (White, 2007, p. 44). Last, he invites and encourages clients to justify their evaluation of the effects of the problem on their lives by asking questions such as: “How come this is/is not okay for you?” “How come you feel this way about this development?” and “How do you come to take this stand/position on this development?” (adapted from White, 2007, “Why” questions on p. 48).

Externalization and the Oppression/Liberation Metaphor

Consistent with Foucault’s (1979, 1980) concerns about the power of “normalizing truths” to not only constitute or shape lives but also conscript persons, as “vehicles” of power, into subjugating and policing themselves, early externalizing conversations privileged the oppression/liberation metaphor (Durrant, 1989; White, 1984, 1988; White & Epston, 1990). Typically, this metaphor constructs a discourse in which the problem is personified as an oppressive character who dominates the lives of clients. Therefore, the goal of therapy is for clients to resist being dominated by the problem and to liberate their lives from the problem’s oppression. For example, White’s (1984) earliest published account of externalizing the problem describes how a child diagnosed with encopresis, and his family named and personified the problem as “Sneaky Poo,” a sneaky character who was skilled in dominating the lives of both the child and his family. Eventually, this different way of talking about the problem enabled the child and his family to liberate their lives from the domination of this sneaky, dirty character.

Definitional Ceremonies: Documenting/Circulating Preferred Stories, Outsider Witness Groups, and Re-membering Practices

White and Epston (1990), drawing on the work of Myerhoff (1982), developed definitional ceremonies in order to counter the power of “expert” professional documents and their associated ceremonies of degradation (Goffman, 1961) that stigmatize and induct people into careers of deviancy and social exclusion. Definitional ceremonies invite and encourage clients to play a central role in developing therapy artifacts and recruiting witnesses as they challenge problem identities by developing preferred stories. By playing a central role in definitional ceremonies, clients have the opportunity to become more aware of how they are able to increase their sense of personal agency by authoring alternative stories that bring forth preferred identities, relationships, and lives. In participating in this process, White and Epston (1990) indicate that definitional ceremonies can “lead to a profound sense of personal responsibility, as well as, a sense of possessing the capacity to intervene in the shaping of one’s life and relationships” (p. 191). As NT evolved, artifacts used in definitional ceremonies grew to include certificates, declarations, letters, audio/video recordings, artwork, and/or poetry, and specific types of definitional ceremonies began to emerge, including documenting new stories, outsider witness groups, and re-membering practices.

Documenting/Circulating Preferred Stories

Documenting and circulating new preferred stories originally included the use of certificates, declarations, and letters (Epston & White, 1992). Certificates and declarations are official documents that proclaim and certify the achievements of clients and may even recognize them as having expertise in coping with specific problems; for example, children certified as fear busters sometimes offered their expertise to other children plagued by fear (White & Epston, 1990). These documents are frequently presented at public gatherings (e.g., parties and ceremonies) in order to spread the news and provide opportunities for clients and participants to “thicken” the development of new preferred stories, abilities, and changes in identities. Letters, typically written and mailed to clients and sometimes others (e.g., parents, family members, friends, and teachers) between sessions, are described by Freeman et al. (1997) as being “Structured to tell the alternative story that is emerging along with the therapy, it documents history, current developments, and future prospects” (p. 112). Of course, different combinations of these therapeutic documents can be used as therapists see fit. For example, Epston (White & Epston, 1990) used letters and a declaration of independence from asthma while working with Daniel, a 14-year-old boy suffering from repeated attacks by life-threatening asthma; his parents; and other medical personnel. These documents played a key role in helping all involved work together toward helping Daniel acquire the knowledge and expertise needed to become an “asthma expert.” Using his newly developed expertise, Daniel was able to reduce both the incidence/severity of life-threatening asthma attacks and the frequency of hospital admissions.

Outsider Witness Groups

Since NT views “identity as relational, distributed, performed, and fluid” (Combs & Freedman, 2012, p. 1042) and considers the development of new and preferred stories to be a “social achievement” (Carey & Russell, 2003, p. 4), the inclusion of others to listen to and acknowledge these developments is an important narrative practice. This practice of inviting others (e.g., friends, family members, community members) to openly and publicly participate as witnesses of therapy conversations arose from Andersen’s (1991) challenge to the anonymity of therapists observing clients through a one-way mirror and Myerhoff’s (1986) account of how communities and people construct their identities in definitional ceremonies that “provide opportunities for being seen and in one’s own terms, garnering witnesses to one’s own worth, vitality, and being” (Myerhoff, 1986, p. 267).

Re-membering Practices

Re-membering, a term coined by anthropologist Barbara Myerhoff (1982) and hyphenated to distinguish it from ordinary recollection, is “the reaggregation of one’s members, the figures who properly belong to one’s life story” (p. 111). Michael White (1997) used this term to introduce several therapeutic practices into NT based on the “club of life” metaphor, a metaphor situated in the poststructuralist claim that identity is relational and multivoiced, meaning stories constituting self-identity are intertwined with the stories of others who are members in one’s club of life. Since certain members are afforded more attention, respect, and higher status than others, those with higher ranks in a club of life are given more credence and, therefore, more influence on how “self” is storied and experienced. The club of life metaphor, by emphasizing membership and rank, allows the reorganization of one’s club by upgrading/downgrading the rank of members, which changes their influence on how one stories and experiences “self,” or by creating an imagined team of supporters and advisors who offer more supportive stories along life’s journey. NT uses these ideas and practices of re-membering to invite and encourage clients to thicken and situate their lives in preferred stories of identity, and create a community or club of life based on choice and not one of simple fortune or life circumstance (Carey & Russell, 2003).

APPLICATION TO FAMILY AND GROUP WORK

NT has successfully been used with individuals, families, groups, and communities. For example, narrative-informed approaches have been developed to address specific populations and/or problems such as eating disorders (Epston et al.,2000; Madigan & Goldner, 1999; Maisel et al., 2004), addiction (Diamond, 2000), children and their families (Buckman, 1997; Buckman & Reese, 1999; Freeman et al., 1997; Smith & Nylund, 1997; White & Morgan, 2006), somatic problems and illness (Griffith & Griffith, 1994; Weingarten, 1997), school problems (Winslade & Monk, 1999), couples (Freedman & Combs, 2002), violent and abusive men (Hall, 2011; Jenkins, 1990), pediatric psychology (Suberri, 2004), and conflict resolution (Winslade & Monk, 2000). Group applications of narrative approaches include the Teaching Empowerment through Active Means program (Redivo & Buckman, 2004), the Anti-Anorexia/Anti-Bulimia League (Madigan & Goldner, 1999), and the use of videos (Wagner, 2004, 2006).

New Developments of the Narrative Approach

It was Michael White’s hope that narrative practice not be a static set of ideas and to continue to evolve and expand into other areas and modes of helping (White, 2007). The years since Michael White’s untimely death in 2008 have seen this dream come to fruition, as practitioners and scholars have built practices upon narrative ideas across the globe. The epilogue of the book Narrative Practice: Continuing the Conversations (White, 2011), published posthumously, offers a range of ways in which NTy has been expanded. These collective narrative practices have been used with people whose communities have experienced natural disasters and/or issues such as violence, abuse, and genocide (Combs & Freedman, 2012; Denborough, 2006, 2008; Denborough et al., 2006; 2008; Mitchell, 2006; Ncube, 2006; Sliep, 2003). One of the most compelling is through the work of David Denborough, Cheryl White, and the team at the Dulwich Center in Adelaide, Australia.

In response to trauma, David and his colleague Necazelo Ncube developed a collective narrative practice called the Tree of Life (Denborough, 2008; Ncube, 2006). This method was originally created to assist vulnerable children in South Africa to meet the needs of children who have been orphaned for various reasons including war and AIDS. A request was made for an approach that would allow the children to be able to discuss trauma without having nightmares, without isolating, and while fostering a sense of community. The Tree of Life has since been used in Canada, Russia, Brazil, Nepal, the Palestinian Territories, and Australia.

The Tree of Life

The Tree lf Life is an approach that has four parts and all parts work together to assist clients to meet their goals of the reduced effects of the problem in their lives. In each part there is a focus on experience near knowledge rather than experience far knowledge (Denborough, 2008). Experience near knowledge is knowledge that emanates from the client, family, community, and/or culture. Those aspects of life that exist and have originated close to the client such as life skills, ways of understanding and coping. Experience far knowledge is information that is developed away from the client. Examples of this type of knowledge might include research done on White males in the 1950’s on how they may process emotions, or data collected on trauma from the experiences of 20 American school children. Experience far knowledge, while of value, is not a focus of teaching skills, or assumed symptomology in narrative practice, rather it is the unique and local knowledge of the clients in their unique contexts that are given focus, and how they have come to place meaning on their own lives.

Part One: Tree of Life

In part one, the client draws a tree and each part of the tree is representative of part of the child’s narrative. The roots of the tree are what ground the client. It is a prompt for the children to discuss and draw on their tree where they came from, their history, or village, favorite songs and traditions, and so forth. The roots are a base that holds them tightly in their preferred narratives.

The earth around the roots of the tree are where the children live at present and represent what their daily activities are (what they like to do). These daily activities are essentially their coping skills that are drawn on the tree and discussed without the idea of “coping” being part of the conversation. The notion of coping is an experience far idea while what they naturally enjoy, and those things that help them escape, is an experience near idea.

The trunk of the tree is a space for children to draw and write their skills. Those things they do well. What they are most proud of about themselves and what they feel they can offer their friends and family. During this time, the counselor asks questions about where these skills came from and what it means to have them.

The branches of the tree represent the hopes, dreams, and wishes they have for their lives. Those things to which they want to aspire, become, and achieve. The counselor may also have conversations about how they have been able to hold onto these dreams, and where they originated.

The leaves of the tree represent the people who are important to the child. These can be people currently in their lives or those who are no longer present or are deceased. Questions about what the person was like and the kind of relationship it was can be helpful to provide preferred relational context to the client. Questions can also be asked about what the other person liked about the child.

The fruit of the tree represents what others have given the child. For example, a child may say she is strong and may attribute the gift of strength to her grandmother. Questions can be asked about how these traits were learned or carried on, and what it might be like for her grandmother to know that her grandchild was carrying on this legacy.

Flowers represent those gifts that the child would like to give others. Perhaps, courage is something the child is particularly proud of and would like to teach that quality. Questions about how the child may feel in offering these gifs to others and being of benefit to the family are helpful in creating preferred narratives.

Part Two: The Forest of Life

After each child has drawn and discussed their tree individually, the trees are placed together on a wall. The children are then invited to see all of their trees as a forest and to view themselves not alone in their experiences. Their histories are discussed in common ways, what skills do they have in common? What values do they share? What hopes and dreams are common? Questions are asked about how forests and the other animals in the forest support one another. Discussions are held about what common challenges the forests faces. It faces fires, insects, and storms, among other things.

Part Three: When the Storm Comes

The children are then asked what kinds of challenges children, either here or far away, face and how they overcome these challenges. Animals may run or hide. They may put up spikes or fight. How do children handle the challenges that come to them? In this way, an externalizing conversation is had and children can talk about their experiences either through the animals or by talking about what other children may be experiencing. In talking about other children or animals they are processing what they may have been through or hear others talking and relate to the similar events in their lives. In this way, the children can talk, but they don’t feel the pressure to talk about their own experiences. The result of this has been an improvement of traumatic symptoms without nightmares associated with recounting trauma (Denborough, 2008).

Part Four: Certificates and a Song

After the children have talked about common struggles and their ways to handle them, there is a celebration of the forest and life. Those members of the children’s’ lives who are important, and who were placed on their trees, are invited to come and look at the forest. A gathering of celebration occurs where the children sing a song to celebrate their forest community and their sense of selves. A preferred narrative has been created and is thickened through this definitional ceremony.

COMPATIBILITY WITH THE GENERALIST-ECLECTIC FRAMEWORK

Although there are differences, we believe there is a great deal of compatibility between NT and the generalist-eclectic framework for direct social work practice. The following addresses the compatibility of NT with selected components of the generalist-eclectic framework.

Person-in-Environment Perspective Informed by Ecological Systems Theory

By emphasizing the intertwining and reciprocal influence of an individual’s story with the stories of others and the preexisting narratives of their sociocultural context, NT aligns itself with the person-in-environment perspective and ecological systems theory emphasis on the interdependence and reciprocal influence of people and their social environments. Thus, NT emphasizes that “personal is political” and vice versa. Narrative therapists view therapy as a way to promote social justice by challenging, deconstructing, and externalizing the problem-saturated stories of clients, and by joining with clients in shared purposes to challenge unfair and unjust social discourses.

An Emphasis on the Development of a Good Helping Relationship That Fosters Empowerment

From its inception, narrative therapists have developed numerous ideas and practices that promote a good working relationship with and the empowerment of clients. Some of the ideas and practices include: (a) developing NT as a collaborative, respectful, nonpathologizing, and nonblaming approach to counseling and community work that honors people as the authors of and experts on their own lives; (b) viewing problems as separate from people; (c) relating to clients as an “appreciative ally” and listening for and encouraging stories of competence and hope that might bring forth new ways of being and relating that create new and more preferred futures; (d) decentering the knowledge and influence of the therapist so that clients can bring forth their own views and perspectives in regard to problems; (e) engaging clients in deconstructing problematic stories and inviting them to thicken narratives that support their new preferred identities, relationships, and lives; and (f) using definitional ceremonies to develop a community of inclusion that supports preferred stories of clients. Such ideas and practices are consistent with the type of helping relationship promoted by the generalist-eclectic framework.

Focus on Issues of Diversity, Oppression, and Strengths

In terms of focusing on issues of diversity, oppression, and strengths, NT is very much attuned to this aspect of the generalist social work perspective. Narrative therapists are very aware of the power of social discourses to dominate, oppress, silence, isolate, and marginalize people. In fact, narrative therapists, in recognizing how their personal stories are intertwined with stories circulating in the sociocultural context, have developed numerous ideas and practices designed to raise their awareness of their own biases and prejudices and to use this awareness to advocate for social justice. For example, narrative therapists in New Zealand have developed “just therapy” (Waldegrave, 1990; Waldegrave et al., 2003), which uses an “accountability process within their agency in which more powerful and dominant groups are required to be accountable to the less powerful and less dominant groups” (Combs & Freedman, 2012, p. 1054). These ideas and practices promote greater accountability to their clients and colleagues and promote social justice in the sociocultural context.

CRITIQUE OF NARRATIVE THEORY AND PRACTICE

In challenging modernism’s hegemony in psychotherapy, NT has had no shortage of critics. Salvador Minuchin (1991) criticizes narrative approaches for emphasizing the social construction of reality. Especially in contexts of poverty and harsh conditions of life, he expressed concern that the focus of narrative therapists on stories would interfere with helping clients cope with the “reality” of social injustices. For example, in describing a woman living in poverty, he made the point that her reality “is not a construct; it is a stubbornly concrete world” (p. 50). He implied that only realists who believe in an objective reality are equipped to help clients cope with “real” problems; however, narrative therapists, well aware of the tendency of narratives to harden into reality, would be just as concerned as Minuchin about helping this woman find and navigate programs that could assist her with food, medical services, housing, and so forth.

Barbara Held (1995) also offered a critique of poststructural/postmodern theory in psychotherapy. While not totally negative about the ascent of poststructural/postmodern therapies, she criticized NT therapists for uncritically accepting poststructuralist/postmodern ideas and practices without evidence of their efficacy. This is a serious critique in the context of widespread efforts to restrict therapy to techniques that have been empirically supported (Norcross, 2001) and manualized to ensure they produce replicable results by other therapists (Bryceland & Stam, 2005). Since poststructural/postmodern therapies do not share the same philosophical assumptions and empirical research methods as modernism, they are in danger of becoming disenfranchised from reimbursement and managed care systems (Busch et al., 2004). Poststructural/postmodern researchers and therapists have countered that the empirically supported treatment movement is too restrictive because it does not allow their preference for methodological pluralism in research, tailoring therapy to the individual rather than diagnostic categories, a focus on contextual factors rather than the individual as site of pathology, and a focus on meanings rather than observable behaviors (Hall, 2017; Wallis et al., 2011; Young & Cooper, 2008; White 2001; Gaddis, 2004; Epston, 2004; Larner, 2004; Smith & Sparkes, 2006).

Additionally, poststructural/postmodern practitioners have been critical of the empirically supported treatment (EST) movement’s implication that approaches that are not dominated by modernism and objective/empirical research methods are unethical (Bryceland & Stam, 2005). While practitioners of NT believe a therapist should be knowledgeable of outcome studies and empirical research methods, they are concerned that being an informed, competent, and ethical therapist should not be equated with adherence to a list of empirically supported techniques.

In response to these concerns, narrative therapists have tailored research methods to fit with their philosophical preferences and have conducted research that involves clients as coresearchers and published research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methods. NT, by emphasizing the collaborative nature of therapy and viewing the client as the expert, naturally supports clients’ involvement as coresearchers in investigating and documenting how problems dominate their lives, the tactics problems use to recruit them into inadvertently keeping the influence of problems alive, and what types of resistance are effective in supporting them in developing alternative and more preferred stories (Epston, 1999; Epston & White, 1992; Maisel et al., 2004). In addition, an extensive list of published research and current research projects investigating the effectiveness of NT is available online (“Research, evidence, and narrative practice,” n.d.). These studies, using a mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods, found NT to be effective with specific problems and demographic groups including schizophrenia (Vaskinn et al. 2011), severe mental illness (Yanos et al., 2012), chemical dependency and the elderly (Morgan et al., 2011; Garder & Poole, 2009), depression and the elderly (Poole et al. 2009), developmental disorders such as autism (Johnson, 2012; Cashin et al. 2013) and Asperger’s (Cashin, 2008), soldiers and posttraumatic stress disorder (Morie, 2011; Aiello, 2010), gay men and transitional issues (McLean & Marini, 2008), adult anxiety (Gallant, 2013), and childhood sexual abuse (Miller et al., 2007), domestic violence perpetrators (Béres & Nichols, 2010; Hall, 2011), depression (Bello, 2011; Santos et al., 2009; Vromans & Schweitzer, 2011), adjusting to hearing loss (Harvey, 2009), enhancing motivation and resistance to treatment (Gold, 2008), couples therapy (Hibel & Polanco, 2010), child therapy (Butler et al., 2009; Wang & Lin, 2011; Ramey et al. 2009), surgery recovery and hospitalizations (Williams, 2009; Hill, 2011; McCoy et al., 2013), body dysmorphia (Da Costa et al., 2007), adult substance abuse (Bacon, 2007; Chanet al., 2012), learning disabilities (Foster & Banes, 2009; Lambie & Milsom, 2010), trauma and violence survivors (Day, 2009; Witney, 2012), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Waters, 2011; Looyeh, et al., 2012), encopresis (White, 1984), family therapy (Lander, 2008), self-cutting (Hannen & Woods, 2012), anorexia, (Robbins & Pehrsson, 2009; Scott, et al., 2013), stuttering (Leahy, et al., 2012), and collaborative evidence and life adjustments (Young & Cooper, 2008).

CASE STUDY 18.1

A case study will now be presented illustrating the components of a narrative approach.

A 67-year-old White female comes to a social worker with complaints of worry and fear. The social worker builds rapport with her as she explains that she has been married for 35 years and was hurt 25 years ago by a chiropractor. She describes experiencing severe back pain during rehab, and since that time, she has gotten better, but in the past four years, she has experienced fears that her back will go out again. The social worker uses narrative to explore these concerns.

Externalizing

First, the social worker seeks to separate the problem from the client. This has the effect of providing space between the client and the problem so that the client can reflect on it as something outside of herself rather than a flaw within herself.

SW:

Now that we’ve gotten to know each other a bit I would like to ask you to play a thought game with me. Is that okay? Just go along with me for a bit. What animal do you dislike the most?

Client:

Oh, I despise rats. I hate them so much. I used to live in New York City and I would see them walking down the street at night. They’re horrible.

SW:

Okay, so if this problem that you have that we are discussing, if this problem were like a rat that comes and visits you what could we call it?

Client:

Oh wow, I don’t know. I guess maybe worry. It bothers me. I know that isn’t that creative a name but the problem is worry. I worry to death.

SW:

That is a great name. It is your name to give. So let’s call it Worry.

The social worker and client have now externalized the problem and shifted it outside of the client. This allows the client to shift away from seeing herself as flawed and situates her into a reflexive state regarding how she has been affected by the problem.

Personifying and Tracing the Effects

With the problem externalized, the social worker now traces the effects of the problem on the life of the client while also personifying the problem.

SW:

Okay, here comes another question that may seem a little strange but I want you to play along with me okay? When this rat named Worry comes around and interrupts your life, how do you feel? What does it do to you?

Client:

Well, I am worried, but I think also frustrated. I hate that it bothers me. So it makes me angry. I know it frustrates my husband. He gets upset because I may be in a good mood and we are going to go out and then I get worried and he loses his patience with me.

SW:

I want to clarify for a second. Does he lose his patience with you or with the Worry? It seems like both of you have the same reaction to the Worry.

Client:

Well, yes, I’ve never thought of it that way but he gets angry at the Worry. I guess it’s not me. It’s my reaction to the Worry.

SW:

You and your husband sound like you’re on the same page, and both of you don’t like this rat called Worry. What do you think Worry wants from you? If it was going to ask you to do things what do you think it might be asking. What does Worry want from you?

Client:

Well, I am not sure. I know I want to escape it, and what I usually do is not go out, and I will stay in my chair and read or crochet. That really makes my husband mad because he wants me to go out and I wont.

SW:

Worry is able to keep you at home when your husband would like you to go out. Does that sound about right?

The social worker has now externalized the problem as Worr y and has personified Worry as a rat that bothers both the client and her husband. The client has been given space for her to not see herself as the problem, and additionally, to see her husband as a partner against the problem rather than being upset with an internal flaw in her. The social worker also briefly traced the effects of the problem, and it appears to want her to stay at home rather than go out.

Linking the Problem to a Discourse and Deconstructing

Next, the social worker links the problem to a discourse and deconstructs the problem. This is not always a step in narrative, but in this case, it makes sense to do so because it appears the client may be self-subjugating according to internalized discourses. As a review, a discourse is an idea that the client may have internalized and is now self-subjugating according to those beliefs. The point of deconstructing is to make visible the discourse and break it down to create space for the client to question, and if so chosen, to redefine the idea in a way that is more beneficial.

SW:

Thanks for sharing these ideas with me; I appreciate your trust. I would like to explore the motives of Worry just a bit if that’s okay? It seems to want you to isolate and stay home. I’m wondering if this is something that you want to do or not? Are there times when you would want to stay home rather than go out?

Client:

If I am being honest then yes, there are times when I would rather stay home. I guess in that sense it serves me to worry. Other times I don’t want to stay home but it is my favorite place.

SW:

Okay, so Worry is not all bad? Sometimes when it wants you to stay home you really want to stay home?

Client:

Yes, I think so. I’ve never really thought of it that way.

SW:

So, do you feel like you can stay home when you would like or do you feel pressure to go out when you don’t want to go?

Client:

Oh my husband really gets upset with me if I sit around the house and do nothing. He has always been a busy person and on his off days he wants me with him.

SW:

Are you able to say no to him on those days that you would like to stay home?

Client:

I can but he gets upset with me. I will feel guilty about not going with him. But sometimes I do go! Just not always.

SW:

I am interested in the idea that you hesitate to say no to your husband about going somewhere when you don’t want to go. Where did this idea come from that you are supposed to go with your husband?

The ensuing conversation explores the idea that the client was recruited into about gender and power relations growing up as a girl in the 1950s. The client shared that she was raised with the belief that a good wife “listens to her husband and makes him happy.” The benefits of this idea were explored, and the client determined that the idea benefited men but did little to benefit women as they were taught to minimize their own emotional needs. Alternative beliefs were discussed, and ultimately, the client decided that an egalitarian belief benefited both she and her husband and that her needs mattered in the relationship as much as his did. This afforded her the space to consider being able to say no in the relationship without the feeling of guilt and without the help of Worry to support her.

SW:

So I am wondering now if Worry has served a purpose in these past four years? You mentioned that Worry came about four years ago.

Client:

Yes, that was actually when we retired and moved to Wilmington.

SW:

I’m wondering if Worry has served to assist you to say no in the relationship when normally you wouldn’t think that you could?

Client:

That makes sense.

Reauthoring

Reauthoring is helping the client to revision the past and, in this case, explore times when the client has gone against the belief that her needs come second in the relationship, as well as times that she did not need Worry as a support to assist her in being able to say no to her husband. The social worker uses two types of questioning when reauthoring: landscape of action questions, which focus on the details of what and how things happened; and landscape of meaning questions, which focus on the feeling and meanings behind the actions.

SW:

Have there been times in the past when you were able to say no to going out and you were able to stay home and do what you wanted to do without Worry being involved?

Client:

Yes there are times when I have told my husband I’m staying in. Those times are usually on Sundays. I let him know that Sundays I like to relax in my chair and do what I want to do.

SW:

During those Sundays what do you say to your husband? How do you explain to him that you’re staying home? (Landscape of action question)

Client:

Well, I am able to say to him that it is Sunday, and Sunday is my day to do the things that I want to do. He will sometimes not like it, but I am able to do it.

SW:

What does it mean to you that you are able to claim your time and say this to your husband? How does it feel for you to do this? (Landscape of meaning question)

Client:

It feels good now that I think about it. I certainly feel like an independent person. I feel a little more powerful.

SW:

You mentioned guilt being something that interferes sometimes when you claim your time. How are you able to keep guilt from silencing you in those moments you chose to stand up for your rights? (Landscape of meaning question)

Client:

I don’t know, I don’t really think about it. It is like I just know what I want and it’s almost like I feel like I deserve it. So when I feel like I deserve it, I don’t even think about guilt.

SW:

So, a sense of deserving offsets guilt? Okay, I wonder also about times when Worry has been present, when it wants you to stay home but you want to go out. Times when Worry is working against you. Have there been times in the past where you have been able to tell Worry no in the same way that you have said no to your husband?

Client:

Wow, let me think about that for a moment. Well, yes, there was a time when I had to travel to help my brother in Kansas because he was dying of cancer. I didn’t want to go, I truly hate to fly and to be away that long from the things I like to do, but I went. And I did a good job! I ended up being the executor of his estate when he passed.

SW:

How were you able to do that? How were you able to say no to Worry in that situation? (Landscape of action question)

Client:

Well, I had no other choice. I love my brother.

SW:

So love is an enemy of Worry? What does that mean to you that the love you have for your brother is stronger than the Worry? (Landscape of meaning question)

The social worker has now assisted the client to recognize exceptions to the problem’s influence and to find times when she stood up and asked for what she needed. These events have been marginalized in her life, and through discussion, they are privileged. The next phase is to assist the client to thicken the newly developing story of personal agency. This is done by bringing in the perspectives of others through a form of witnessing.

Thickening the New Story

SW: Who in your life, living or past, would be least surprised to know that you have the power to state your needs in a relationship?

Client:

Least surprised? You mean not surprised? Okay, well I think maybe my grandmother Sarah. She always said I was a firecracker and I kind of liked that when I was younger.

SW:

You say she called you a firecracker? What did she see in you? What do you think she sees now?

Client:

She just knew me as a person who would say things I wanted to say, and no I don’t think she would be surprised to know that I stick up for myself now. She would actually be surprised to know I didn’t.

SW:

Are there others who saw you as a firecracker in your life? Who might agree with your grandmother Sarah?

The social worker and client discuss a range of people in the client’s life who see her as a capable person who can stick up for herself. This serves to thicken the new story as the client recognizes others see her in this way and that her story as s strong person is not new at all, it has just existed as a marginalized story in her life.

SW:

Now that you more clearly see these things about yourself, and you are no longer caught in an idea that your needs and desires do not matter, how might this affect your future decisions?

Client:

I think I won’t be as timid, and I think I can stand up to my husband a little more. I also think Worry isn’t needed as much. It is interesting that it served a purpose sometimes and also wasn’t good for me at other times.

Definitional Ceremony

The last piece of the practice is a ceremony that is of value to the client in defining herself and embracing her preferred story. The client decided to write a short history of how she is a “firecracker” and asked her husband to come to session to listen to her. He attended the session and she explained to him that she had been caught up in a sense of inadequacy and a discourse of gender marginalization. Her husband listened and supported her in her recently discovered historical voice.

CONCLUSION

Although NT challenges many of the philosophical assumptions and practices associated with modernism and its hegemony over the education and training of professionals engaged in human services, we hope your journey through this chapter has enlivened your spirit to continue exploring alternative and possibly more preferred narratives of therapy. NT, pioneered by White and Epston (two social workers), embraces ideas and practices that support working with clients and communities in collaborative, respectful, nonpathologizing, and nonblaming ways, and honoring them as the authors of and experts on their own lives. NT shares many values, perspectives, and practices of the social work profession. Furthermore, NT is compatible with social work’s emphasis on: (a) conceptualizing and understanding how clients and their social contexts are intertwined and mutually influence each other; (b) promoting social justice by encouraging therapists to join with clients and other interested parties to challenge unjust social discourse and practices, including those associated with class, race, gender, sexual orientation, and ability; (c) fostering a good client–worker relationship; and (d) developing a collaborative process between clients and workers that empowers clients to recognize, build, and use their strengths to face their problems. Therefore, NT seems well suited for social workers and fits into the finest traditions of the social work profession.

In closing, this chapter is dedicated to Michael White, who died unexpectedly in 2008 doing what he loved, leading a workshop in California; David Epston, who continues to practice, write, lead workshops worldwide, and even found time to encourage and provide guidance to us as we wrote this chapter; and to all of those engaged in narrative approaches to therapy and community work. We feel great respect and gratitude for your contributions, and appreciate your continued commitment to add new pages and even new chapters to the “open book” of NT.

SUMMARY POINTS

This chapter has:

•helped the reader to understand the historical development of NT,

•helped the reader to understand the guiding theory of NT,

•helped the reader to understand the stages of NT,

•helped the reader to understand how NT is used in a case,

•helped the reader to integrate narrative into the generalist-eclectic approach, and

•helped the reader to evaluate the strengths and limitations of narrative therapy.