|
Originally
published in Gecko
1997: Vol.1
Practice
Notes: the everyday
practice and application of ideas in therapy and counselling
can generate new thinking and develop more helpful ways of
working. However, writing about work in progress or the
formulation of new ideas doesn't always lend itself to the
format of a traditional article. So, this section of Gecko
is dedicated to shorter descriptions and discussion of
developing ideas and work in progress. In short, they are
practice notes.
A Format of Questions
for an Alternative Version of a Problem's Relationship to a
Couple's Relationship'
by
David
Epston2
Often when people seek my
counsel on behalf of their relationship, it is in a very
poor state of affairs. In fact, I doubt if there would be
any other 'object' of roughly the same importance to people
that would be neglected to the same extent before some
remedy was sought. At such times the measure of hope that
each party brings to counselling is often limited, and their
participation is desultory or cautious. It is almost as if
they were watching their relationship passing into a state
of disuse right before their eyes.
In those relationships
that have not been compromised by violence, betrayal, or
other injuries, I have been introducing an historical
alternative to what I refer to as 'the Problem's version of
your partner in this relationship of yours'. In exploring
this historical alternative, which I refer to as 'Love's
version' , I take pains to situate this respective version
in the context of the couple's relationship. This allows for
quite disparate descriptions of each partner in other
contexts and relationships, e.g., work, friends, family of
origin, recreational and gender-specific pursuits, etc. Such
descriptions are often at odds with the Problem's version of
each partner and call it into question, e.g., 'How is it,
Jack, that you are such a "good mate" to your mates while
the Problem has convinced Judy that you are a "poor mate" to
her?'
The possibility of
exploring 'Love~ s version of the partner and the
relationship depends, of course, on whether there was such a
version of the other and the hoped-for relationship in the
first place. Clearly, some partners are now only too willing
to acknowledge that they doubted the wisdom of the
relationship from the outset, that they believe themselves
to be mismatched, or that they were imprudent at the time of
their 'marriage'. Examples of such accounts include: 'I knew
I wanted to end the engagement, but my parents had sent out
the invitations
o and I felt I couldn't
let them down'. Or, 'I was so lonely at the time, having
just moved to a new city knowing no-one'. Even if there are
historical 'traces' of 'Love's version'~ but the couple are
too embittered to 'rewind' to those times in
o the past, I would
abandon such an interviewing tack.
With those couples who
are able and willing to enter into exploring 'Love's
version' of each other and the relationship, I have been
finding that by interviewing them about this version, the
'Problem's version' becomes less convincing or compelling
for a while. I emphasise 'for a while' because such
recollections, however heart-warming, probably won't endure
if some readily visible actions are not taken by either one
or both parties to revive their 'Love's version . A couple
can experience shock as they reconstruct the history of the
erosion of 'Love's version' of each other and their
relationship. And if some positive initiatives are not taken
to renew their hopes, even greater dismay or sorrow may
follow.
In order to illustrate
the practice I have been describing here, I have 'mocked up'
a format of the sort of questions that assist couples in the
recall of 'Love's version' of each other and the
relationship. Further questions can then be asked to
contrast the Problem's version to Love's version of their
relationship.
Often regret dominates
these conversations However, although the 'old Love' may
never be rehabilitated, there now may be at least a
conceptual prospect of a new kind of Love' and an inkling of
the light it might cast on each partner and their
relationship.
Suggested Questions tor
Exploring 'Love's Version' of a Relationship
1. Were you brought
together into this relationship by Love, or was it something
else? Perhaps you wanted someone to wash your dirty laundry
and prepare meals for you? Or was it something else, like
you wanted children and you thought he would provide solid
genetic material?
2. What was Love's
version of him/her in the first place? Or, were you blinded
by Love in the first place?
In spite of those
matters that are besetting your relationshgr,, how much of
Love 's version of him/her still lives on or you in everyday
l~/e, in your heart 's longings, in your dreams for the
future ofyour relationshzr,?
3. Has s/he ever been
able to put you in touch with Love's version of who you are
in this relationship of yours? Or did Love's version of
him/her subside once you were married? Or afier the
honeymoon?
Did s/he put you in
touch with Love's version of who you are by word or
deed?
Which of these two
communications do you find more convincing? Or do you prefer
them mixed up in 'acts of love/partnership' or whatever you
want to call them?
4. What has the
Problem tried to 'talk you into' (is trying to talk you
into) about him/her?
How is that version of
him/her diferent from Love 's version of him/her? Do you
prefer to relate to him/her according to 'Love 's version'
of him/her, or according to the 'Problem 's
version'?
5. Has s/he ever been
able to contest the Problem(s) version of
him/her?
Did this support
Love's version of her/him at the same time?
Did this renew Love 's
version of him/her at the same time?
Did s/he do this in
ways that are diferent from the ways you had in
the
honeymoon ofyour
relationship?
6. Now that this
relationship of yours has become troubled/problematic/in
peril, etc, how could you describe your relationship to it?
Are you becoming more determined to reclaim Love 's version
of it? Or is your determination waxing and waning? Or
what?
What has become of
Love's version of each other in these circumstances? At this
time?
Has Love's version of
him/her become past history and fond memories? Or has Love
's version been injured by 'x' but is now on the mend? Or is
IT terminal and now more a matter for hospice care rather
than aggressive treatment? Are you more hopeful/determined
than ever to breathe new life into Love 's version of
him/her? Or are you settled on the Problem 's version of
him/her and want to leave it at that?
7. When you were
maddened by Love, would you have believed it possible
(conceivable) that such a Problem(s) could have done so much
damage to Love 's version of him/her? Or that the Problem's
version could have substituted itself for Love's version? Do
you marvel at this? Or is this a cause for
despair?
8. Do you now consider
yourself betrayed/deluded/deceived by Love's version of
him/her?
Is making a
relationshz~ that endures more than a matter of Love? What
else would you now include in your formula for a
relationship in- which Love will not only endure but be
augmented?
The approach that I am
describing here is still at a very preliminary stage, and at
best could be described as 'one-eighth baked'. Instead of
elaborating on it solely in my own practice, I invite
readers who might have been developing similar practices,
and others who find them interesting, to try them out and
extend them. It is my hope that you will join in the
formation of a network of practitioners pursuing similar
ideas. I can be contacted at The Family Therapy Centre, 1
Garnet Road, Westmere, Auckland, New Zealand
Notes
1. This writing has as
one of its sources Michael White's 'Couple therapy and
deconstruction'. Workshop Handout, AAMFT Conference, 1992,
Washington, D.C. In particular, I was taken by what he
described as 'Influence of the Problem Question', such as:
'How do you see this problem reflecting on your
relationship?' 'What sort of opinions have you formed about
your relationship since it has been under the influence of
this problem?' 'In what ways do you think this problem has
influenced your interaction with each other?' 'In response
to this problem, what strategies are you witnessing each
other engaging in?' 'How do you think these conclusions have
affected what you do in this relationship?'
Another source were many
conversations with Wally McKenzie, Hamilton Therapy Centre,
New Zealand about his practice of invoking an alternative
'courtship' or 'honeymoon'.
I would also like to
acknowledge Sallyann Roth, Family Institute of Cambridge,
Boston, for her careful reading and discerning
comments.
2. David can be contacted
at The Family Therapy Centre, 1 Garnet Road, Westmerc,
Auckland, New Zealand.
3. I have employed
'Respect's Version' or 'Friendship's Version' when couples
have selected those descriptions as the most
favourable.
|