Meaning and experience are interactionally constructed.
Meaning and experience are interactionally constructed.
This chapter overviews the map of pathways of constructing solutions. After introducing the paths in this chapter, succeeding chapters will describe the paths in more detail.
The conversation between therapist and client based on constructing solutions, can be described as taking many different paths. Just as getting from Chicago to New York can be mapped many ways, so too with mapping the varied processes of constructing solutions. No one way is better or right under all circumstances. No one way gets you there all the time in the way you want. There are an infinite number of ways and conversations.
Figure 3 is a map of possible pathways to move along through a possible conversation. It can guide your thinking and actions in the process of developing goals/solutions. (This map is a development from the “Central Map” created by de Shazer, 1988.)
This map is a simplified guide to the conversation in our therapy sessions. It visually actualizes four assumptions:
Figure 3. Pathways of Constructing Solutions
The map suggests focusing on the positive by: first, identifying what the client wants (the goal); then focusing either on how that is happening now (exception times when the goal is happening already) or how the problem is not happening (exceptions to the problem times); or how the goal/solution will look in the future (hypothetical solution). The map (and the assumptions built into it) assume that change is happening all the time and that new meaning and experience of change are constructed through the therapeutic conversation. The paths merely suggest different ways for new meaning and experience to evolve from the interaction of therapist and client(s).
With this quick overview of the map, let us now walk through it in greater detail.
We begin an initial session with the question, “What is your goal in coming here?” Clients often state what they want in a way that implies that some action can be taken by them. However, they sometimes begin by saying something in the form of a complaint or a wish, rather than a goal or problem.
These distinctions are useful at the beginning of therapy. Wishes are some affective statement by the client of how she or he would like things to be. These wishes may be cravings or desires, but are not goals. Complaints are the opposite side of the same coin. Complaints are statements of how the client is unhappy with the way things are. Complaints are usually statements of discontent, grief, pain, or resentment. The statements, wishes, or complaints do not include implications of solutions or that anything can be done. They are usually statements of affect about some situation.
Clients may also report a diagnosis either of their own making or by a professional. Diagnoses are not goals or problems. Diagnoses tend to be labels that describe a state or condition. As such, the diagnoses do not imply any action or solution.
A diagnosis also confuses logical levels. A diagnosis can confuse the person with the problem implied in the label of the diagnosis and states the situation as if the person and the problem were the same. White and Epston (1990) have written about the disempowering aspects of confusing the person with labels of the problem. In their model, they use a procedure called “externalizing the problem” to achieve the separation of levels. We also want to separate the person from the problem, but more importantly we want to focus on the goal or solution as separate from the person.
As we previously stated in our assumptions in Chapter Two, we would not assume that a person is anything, or that the person acts in certain ways all the time.
So when clients come in and make a self-diagnosis or state that they are unhappy, or the children are unruly, or they wish the children were happier, or they were more confident, or the spouse were nicer, we begin to wonder, “What can we as therapists do about it?” Since wishes and complaints are only affective statements, we can do very little. If we accept such statements as goals, we will engage in an endless pursuit of trying to change clients’ feelings about their situations.
What we aim to do is help clients change their expressions of unhappiness into statements of goals. With wishes or complaints translated into goals, clients can formulate indications for activities or solutions.
For example, a client comes in and in response to the question, “What is your goal in coming here?” describes how depressed she feels and how she has always had very low self-esteem. She proceeds to tell us a long history of broken relationships with men and how she has just been let go from her job. She states she is feeling very low and wonders whether she will ever have a successful relationship or be happy. As the client is telling us this, a question forms in our mind: “This is all very sad, but how can we help her with all this or what does she want out of coming to therapy?”
This question coming to our mind is our clue that we and the client are still on the wish or complaint level, and that we need to “Do something different.” The following questions can be useful in moving from wishes or complaints toward a statement of a goal or problem:
For example, the previously mentioned client might say, “Well, I want to work out some ways in which I can make my relationship work, so I do not continue to be rejected.” This statement is closer to a goal about which she can do something.
If the client were to say, “I do not want to be doing things that cause me to be rejected,” the statement implies that there may be things in the opposite direction of action. She or he may be able to do things to get more acceptance. We would then ask, “So, what will you be doing instead?”
Moving from a wish or a complaint to a goal is a move from merely an expression of affect towards some definition that implies possible action can be taken. Once the client is stating something on the goal or the problem/solution level, we are in a position to use the conversational frames and pathways towards solution constructing as outlined in Figure 3.
Three tools that we use in conversation with clients are the frames of goal, exceptions, and hypothetical solution. We use these as co-constructive frames, invitations for both the client and therapist to enter. The frames are not just constructive or perceptual frames for us as interviewers to help us filter information. By asking questions of the client in the form of these frames, we invite the client to construct a story, or “reality,” within these areas that make up the frame. When the client responds within these frames, both the therapist and client are co-constructing new stories of their experience. Both therapist and client are engaged within the frames.
We use the words goal frame, exceptions frame, and hypothetical solution frame on two different levels. We use them on the perceptual level to describe how we filter what we see and listen to from the client, as well as how the client filters what she or he sees and hears. On the interactional level, we use these frames to describe the mutual framework that everyone is involved in as we converse. They become the frame of the conversation.
White and Epston (1990) have written about how the narrative metaphor is a useful analogy for therapy. They propose that people make a story of their experience; problems arise when the story does not fit their lived experience. They further propose that the goal of therapy is the co-authoring of new stories that allow for experience that is helpful, satisfying, and more open-ended.
We find this metaphor of “storying” useful; our metaphor of moviemaking is consistent with “storying.” We use the frames of goal, exceptions, and hypothetical solutions to enhance the process of generating new stories or movies.
We use these frames for different purposes. The “goal” frame is used to invite the client into conversation about what the client wants to be doing and what will be the task of therapy. This frame is used in variations on this question: “What is your goal in coming here?”
The “exceptions” frame is an invitation to converse about the time when the goal or solution may be happening already or when the problem does not happen. This frame is used in variations of either of the following two questions: “How is your goal happening somewhat now?” and “When doesn’t the problem happen?”
The “hypothetical solution” frame is an invitation to brainstorm and pretend the goal is happening or the problem is solved. It is used in variations of this question: “When you are doing what you want (or when the problem is solved), what will you be doing differently?”
All three frames are intertwined in the paths to goal development or solution construction.
We want to know what the client(s) wants to be doing in a well-defined way—and the “logic” of the map (Figure 3) helps both the therapist and client construct the goal in a well-defined way. We help the client construct her or his goal by focusing the conversation on how they are doing their goal now (exceptions of either when the goal is happening already or the problem is not happening) or how they will be doing it in the future (hypothetical solution).
This map of pathways to constructing solutions is used concurrently with the checklist for a well-defined goal to guide the conversation around to the development of new meaning and goals or solutions. As the therapist, we are following the paths of the map and we compare each statement made by the client with the checklist for a well-defined goal in order to enhance and sharpen the goal development.
A solution-focused approach boils down to the interweaving of these three frames and their accompanying questions. Most of the questions we ask the clients are variations of these three questions. They are used in an open-ended manner in the sense that we make no predetermination what the answer should be. The expert is the client and the solution or goal is his/hers to construct.
In sum, our first question to the client is, “What is your goal in coming here?” To this question, the client usually gives us a goal statement. However, sometimes clients give us a complaint or wish and we need to help them redefine their statement into a goal. If the client responds with a wish or complaint, we use one of the four questions from the previous section in order to help the client move to the goal level. We might ask, “So, tell me what about this you would like to change,” or, “Tell me how I can help you with this.” We pursue this until we have a statement on the goal/problem level.
We are then ready to pursue paths of constructing solutions. The paths we outline below are only suggested ways to think about goals and conversation. We do not want to suggest that these are the only paths or that the paths embody a structure that must be followed. We believe that each therapist is different and each client is unique. Each conversation between therapist and client, as well as each path of constructing solutions, is unique and open-ended. There is no set way.
When clients respond to the question, “What is your goal in coming here?” with a statement of their goal—or when we have helped clients redefine their complaint or wish into a goal—the map suggests that we adopt either the exceptions path or the hypothetical solution path. The exceptions path orients clients around times when the goal may already be happening, even though not to the full extent or in the exact way they may want.
As the client states her or his goal, we check with our criteria for a well-defined goal to determine if the statement is linguistically positive—that is, what the client wants rather than what the client does not want.
When we take the exceptions route, we need to keep in mind the other criteria and invite more statements from the client that are specific and process-oriented in the here and now. For example, if a client stated that she or he would like to be acting more securely or confidently in a love relationship, we would follow up this statement with questions such as: “Tell me about the times when you act a little that way now” (Request for exceptions, times when the goal is already happening) or “How are you specifically doing that, when you are acting a little more securely?” (A specific and process-oriented question).
Assuming that clients identify times when they are doing some of what they want (exception times when the goal is already happening), the next fork in the map is centered around the distinction of control (the fifth criteria of a well-defined goal). Distinguishing according to control is based on the client’s frame of reference. We assume that if clients are already doing what they want to be doing, they are doing it within their sphere of control. However, they may perceive their actions as totally spontaneous and seemingly out of their control.
Clients may perceive that being able to act more securely in a love relationship is dependent on their mood or possibly on the actions of the other first. Another possibility is their not knowing how to explain their performance within the exception times.
If clients perceive their actions to be within their control or as deliberate actions, we would then pursue how they will continue to do these things. If they perceive their performing of the goal as spontaneous or out of their control, we as therapists would facilitate their making what seems to them out of their control as in their control and repeatable.
You may have noticed that this stated goal of “acting more securely” comes close to being stated in a wish form. If the client had stated that she or he wanted to “be more secure,” this statement would be only a wish for a feeling. If “being more secure” were the initial statement by the client, we would have to use questions to get the statement in a goal form that implies some action can be taken, such as, “What about this can I help you with?” or “If you were feeling that way, what would you be doing differently?”
If the client maintains that there are no occasions when the goal is already happening or if she or he has a difficult time stating a goal in a positive form, we use the hypothetical solution frame to find out more details about the goal. Should the client who wanted to be acting more securely maintain that there were no occasions when acting more securely happened even a little, we would ask about a hypothetical future when the goal will be happening; for example: “So, if a miracle happened and you were acting the way you want to, how would you be acting (client’s word) differently?” (Goal orientation in the hypothetical) or “So, if, as you leave here today, you were on track to acting more securely, what will you be doing differently?” (Goal orientation in the hypothetical and in the here and now).
Once the client enters the hypothetical solution frame and answers the question, she or he usually comes up with details that enable a switch to exceptions and identification of times when she or he is accomplishing the goal somewhat, right now. For example, in response to the hypothetical solution question, the client might say that if he were acting more securely, he would be pursuing his own interests rather than waiting at the phone for his lover to call. This statement is more specific, and allows the therapist then to ask, “So tell me about those times when you get into your own thing even if you are tempted to wait by the phone.” This brings the client into exception times when the goal is already happening. You then pursue the example with criteria for a well-defined goal.
When the client presents a problem rather than a goal, we can help her or him move to a positive direction by asking an exception-oriented question: “When doesn’t the problem happen?” This form of the question will orient the client into a search for positives. This question remains within the “problem frame” rather than the goal frame, but leads the client toward the other side of problem time and into the present when the problem is not happening.
We can pursue relatively the same “exceptions” path that was used with the client who began with a positive statement (Path I, Goal Statement and Exceptions), by inviting the client toward “exceptions to the problem.” We pursue this path of the map without initially getting a goal statement. For example, suppose the same client came in and stated that the reason he was coming in was that he was acting too insecurely with his lover. He stated that he repeatedly pursued and nagged his lover with questions about whether she loved him or not. His initial statement is in the form of a problem. We can pursue the exceptions frame by asking, “When doesn’t this happen?” We thus invite and pursue exception times but still remain within an “exceptions to the problem” frame. After finding some exception times, the client may be more able or ready to define what he does want as opposed to what he does not—how he wants to be acting rather than how he does not want to act. He may also be in a better position to adopt a more positive definition of the exceptions.
Initially, the same client may have been so overwrought that he could think and say only what he did not want, that is, to not be insecure. By our pursuing times when he acted not so insecure, we invite him to look at contexts or times of some success. If he thinks that signs of his acting insecurely are times when he pursues his girlfriend with questions of “Do you love me?” “How much do you love me?” and “What are you thinking of me?” we would invite him to look at times when he resists asking those questions or does something different. After identifying the exception times, he may be in a better position to talk about what he does want, a goal in a well-defined way. He may then be able to say that he wants to act “more self-dependently” rather than being dependent on his girlfriend’s reactions. This latter frame of “acting dependent on himself” is in a positive form and the beginning of a more workable goal.
While pursuing this path, we still use our checklist for a well-defined goal. The difference from Path I (goal statement and exceptions) is that initially we stay within the “exceptions to the problem” frame, not in a goal frame, until clients seem to be in a better position to define what they want. Clients then are more in a position to create movies of themselves, and refine such movies in terms of what they do want to be doing. We still help the client describe exceptions more specifically, in a process form, and as close to now as possible. We also pursue the distinction of the map between deliberate and spontaneous exceptions, and then help the client describe what they want as within their control.
Sometimes, in beginning therapy with a client, switching to a hypothetical future with the problem solved is a more workable path. If a client seems to have difficulty stating what she or he wants or in finding exceptions, the “hypothetical solution frame” can be useful.
A hypothetical solution path can be useful with many clients, especially couples who arrive so angry or resentful that they have a difficult time identifying anything positive. A hypothetical solution path is also useful for clients who are overfocused on the problem or on their present attempted solution. For example, parents may be so focused on a child’s misbehavior that they have lost track of what life will be like when the problem is solved or even of what they want. Another example are clients who are so focused on their means of losing weight that they have lost track of what they want out of losing the weight.
We invite them into the “hypothetical solution frame,” life without the problem, with this typical question: “If a miracle happened tonight and you woke up tomorrow with the problem solved, or at least you thought you were on track to solving it, what would you be doing differently?” This is a variation of the “miracle question” of the Brief Family Therapy Center (de Shazer, 1988).
This new framing invites them to suspend their reality of the moment and enter a hypothetical reality of miraculous. When they enter a hypothetical reality, anything goes. Their “reality” framing of the problem does not have to apply and they can begin to define what they want or will be doing within a “miracle” frame.
A couple who come in stating that they always fight can be focused toward a miraculous future when the problem is solved. They may reply that they will be talking with each other as opposed to at each other. By suspending the frames and distinctions they apply to now and “reality,” they can speak of what they want in a “nonreal” or “miraculous” future.
Clients who binge and purge in order to lose weight can focus on what they will be doing when at their desired weight. They may respond that they will be acting more assertively with people on the job or in social relationships.
Often, the hypothetical solution question brings out a more workable definition of a goal or solution than the problem “reality” the clients had been working under. The couple who had said they had always fought can now focus on talking “with” each other. Clients complaining about being overweight can now focus on what they ultimately want beyond controlling the weight—that is, acting more assertively.
The next step on the map is to guide clients to exceptional times in the present—that is, when the hypothetical solution happens now “a little bit.” This step follows the arrow from the hypothetical on the right to exceptions on the left. This step brings the miraculous into the present, where it can be used to build on. With these new and more workable definitions of a goal, clients will have an easier time finding “exceptions.”
The fighting couple would be asked to identify times when they talk with each other now a little bit. Within this frame of talking with each other rather than that of their problem, the couple is now more able to find positives and to identify what they do that works at those times.
If time does not permit your pursuing the hypothetical into exceptions, tasks can be constructed for the client for “Doing some small piece of the miraculous solution.” This will be explained further in Chapter Six on the hypothetical solution frame.
The progression of the map from top to bottom involves the development of goals and solutions within the criteria for a well-defined goal. At the bottom of each path are suggestions for tasks that can be outlined at the end of the session. The map thus leads not only to goal and solution development, but also to actions that clients can do at the end of any session.
The next two chapters will discuss specifics on how to use the different paths.
QUESTION:
Is this map not imposing too much structure on the interaction?
This map of possible paths to take in conversation with clients is only a conceptual schema. Although we teach it rather strictly at first, we expect that each therapist will use it eventually within her or his own personal style. The map is never imposed at the risk of losing rapport. It is a map only of possible conversations and does not impose what the goal should be or what the client should do. The map and criteria for a well-defined goal make therapeutic conversation different from casual conversation or other types of conversation.
The criteria for a well-defined goal offer guidelines for solution construction without specifying the content. If you find yourself supplying the goal for clients or trying to force the conversation toward what you think they should want, you are off track. Go back to what they say they want.
1. With a partner, ask the first question of a first session: “What is your goal in coming here?” Then, ask yourself if the response is a complaint or wish statement or if it is a goal statement. Do this several times, with your partner playing different clients. Practice identifying when you have a goal or problem statement, as opposed to a wish or complaint statement.
2. Go over the status of your present cases and ask yourself whether you have complaints and wishes or whether you have goals.