The concept of unique outcomes provides a bridge that links deconstruction and reconstruction. Unique outcomes are those instances in which an individual or a family finds exceptions to their problem-saturated story. They are based on the belief that families have the potential to resist, and have previously resisted, these harmful stories by serving as “building blocks” for preferred stories, or the stories that the families want for their lives (White & Epston, 1990; Nichols, 2014). This insight can help motivate families to enter reconstruction, which occurs when families create new stories (i.e., narratives) that empower them rather than disempower them. Reconstruction provides new ways for families to move forward by freeing themselves of the problem. Intervention skills The central skills used by a narrative family therapist include ● Mapping the influence of the problem on the family. ● Externalizing conversations. Mapping the influence of the problem on the family is the first step of assessment, in which the practitioner explores the family’s understanding of the problem’s negative influence on them. However, the flexibility of this model is such that the skills do not appear sequentially, but rather co-occur during various phases of the therapy. In conjunction with the first step is a related step of having externalizing conversations . Here the practitioner asks questions to help the family isolate the problem from the family. Returning to the son who is fighting at school and has kept his sexual orientation a secret from his parents, the therapist asks, “Were there times in the past where ‘Secrecy’ tried to get the better of you, but you didn’t let it?” ● Deconstructing cultural assumptions. ● Asking “relative influence” questions. ● Reading between the lines of the problem story. ● Reauthoring. ● Reinforcing the new story. Because problems are sometimes so intrinsic to a family’s thinking, the forced separation of the problem (by making the externalized problem the focus versus the family member) allows a family to put the role of the problem in perspective. During mapping, the therapist asks about the family’s anger with the son’s secrecy. The therapist asks the family how “Anger with Secrecy” has affected the family, perhaps illuminating that “Anger with Secrecy” compels them to disconnect and be distant from one another or, conversely, that “Anger with Secrecy” has prompted them to engage in arguments. During mapping and externalizing conversations, it is sometimes important for the practitioner to engage in deconstructing cultural assumptions , which means challenging stereotypes of gender, appearance, sexual orientation, and other stereotypes that are reflective of dominant yet harmful cultural narratives (Nichols, 2008). Here the therapist asks how the family members were taught and received messages about different groups of people in society. This can promote self-reflection on attitudes and stereotypes for which self-reflection did not exist before. The practitioner helps the family recognize that cultural assumptions about what it means to be gay had influenced the family’s views, and messages about sexual orientation had contributed to their anger about the son’s secrecy. Indeed, such a question might spur insight that the parents themselves had internalized these cultural assumptions, namely that the parents should be angry about having a son who identifies as gay and therefore should keep this knowledge secret. Asking relative influence questions assesses how deeply the problem has disrupted the family’s life. Asking these questions promotes the externalizing conversations and “is initiated at the outset of the first interview, so that persons are immediately engaged in the activity of separating their lives and relationships
from the problem” (Epston & White, 1990, p. 42). This provides the family with a useful gauge to see the problem’s influence. The therapist asks the parents: “How often does ‘Anger with Secrecy’ appear in your interaction with your son?” As families are sharing the impact of the problem on their lives, a therapist who is reading between the lines of the problem story helps the family explore those times when the problem has not been present (similar to exceptions in the solution- focused model) (Nichols, 2014). This investigation provides an opportunity for the practitioner to assist them in looking for the unique outcomes, namely, those times when the problem did not occur. In the example, the therapist would explore with the son a time when “Anger with Secrecy” was not present, as well as ask the parents about times when they had not been angry about their son not directly sharing his sexual orientation with them. The following vignette shows how a practitioner would apply the narrative family therapy model in practice. The narrative therapy family practitioner began working with the Davis family by mapping the influence of the problem on the fa mily. For Danielle, the problem was the homophobia displayed by her mother and stepfather; for her mother and stepfather, the problem was Danielle’s “homosexuality,” although this was more of a problem for Mr. Davis than for Mrs. Davis. Moving toward externalizing conversation about how the family perceived Danielle’s coming out, the therapist assessed the family and helped them identify that Danielle and Mr. and Mrs. Davis, respectively, were perceiving Danielle’s coming out from two very different perspectives. Though it was challenging to the family members, the practitioner explored the problems as the family presented them; however, being aware that the problem was not same-sex attraction in itself but, rather, the reaction to it, the practitioner suggested that the family explore the consequences of homophobia and homosexuality. The therapist also deconstructed the destructive cultural assumption of homosexuality by educating the couple that same-sex attraction and love is representative of human variance and is not pathology-based, as they may have been socialized to believe through their religion and society as a whole. The therapist helped the family move toward a common understanding of the problem by continuing to look at its impact. What were the consequences of homophobia from Danielle’s perspective? She felt alienated from Mrs. and Mr. Davis. What were the consequences of “homosexuality” from the couple’s perspective? Both terms, homosexuality and homophobia, might have been very sensitive words for the various family members. If so, perhaps the common “problem” was how the family members were disappointed in one another and how this disappointment (note the separation from person) was affecting their family. They agreed that the common “problem” was labeled “disappointment related to coming out” (DRCO), and the coming out process could be explored to the extent DRCO had affected the family. All family members shared that this DRCO affected them a great deal. Asking relative influence questions served to further provide information on the impact of DRCO on the family members’ lives, including DRCO’s interaction with the family members’ faith. Shifting to reconstruction, the practitioner read between the lines of the problem story and sought unique outcomes such as times the couple did not feel in conflict with their religious beliefs when loving and supporting their daughter. The practitioner asked the couple if there was a time when they were not DRCO and Mrs. Davis said there was one time, when she had hugged her daughter and told her she loved her anyway, even though she was still in shock. The
EliteLearning.com/Psychology
Book Code: PYCA1423
Page 14
Powered by FlippingBook