Structural, Strategic, Systemic (Milan) - all have similarities according to Heather Hayes (Re-Introduction to Family Therapy Clarification of The Schools) A.N.Z. Fam Ther 1991, Vol 12 No 1, pp 27-43.
All 'school's have similarities in how they view the emergence of a 'problem'. They see the problem emergence as synonymous with a transitional period in family life. They also see inflexibility, rigidity, old beliefs as informing a family's attempted solutions to problems, focus on present not the future, change rules/beliefs, use language to help change beliefs and pattern of interactions (e.g. relabelling or reframing), therapist adopts views of family, but with another alternative view.
Most interesting for me is that Heather Hayes suggests process is emphasised above content. This is certainly my current stance. In a service that encourage process shifts, I may be finding the observation of language (as per my current understanding of Collaborative) difficult to tap in to.
Am I then still a first order therapist? What needs to change for me to become more contemporary (second/third order)?
Firstly, I am excited at having noticed where I stand. I have alluded to hesitance to 'jump' over the many years in which FT tried to find it's feet and automatically become contemporary. Hoffman, beautifully describes her own path to being contemporary and how over time she rejected/built upon, traditional approaches to then help her own 'aha!' moments, and transition herself in to a new way of thinking.
Secondly, I have no idea if that will come for me! I am staunchly an interventionist, however I do enjoy exploring the language and beliefs of clients. Partly I am genuinely interested (nosey?) in peoples history, and partly introducing more exploration of language in to my practice. I've yet to offer an direct intervention nor be intentionally strategic.
Ok, a long way to go I know, but I'm eager to become that 'great' therapist that colleagues refer difficult cases to!
No comments:
Post a Comment