When reading about externalising conversations, I experienced a profound shift in the way I look at problems. As a social worker, I had been trained to somewhat diagnose client’s problems and hypothesising the various ways that these problems could have possibly manifested. A common habit when adopting this way of looking at things is the tendency to look at the problem as inherent in the client, either in individual character traits, or in patterns within the family system. It is a great irony to me, when as helping professionals, we work towards reducing the impact of the problem on our clients, but we insinuate that the problem and the person are one of the same, an action that may further increase the influence of the problem with our clients. We do this through the language we use with our clients, and the beliefs we have about their relationship with these problems.
Statements such as “you are depressed”, may seem harmless, but they reflect the perception that the idea that being depressed is intrinsic in the self. These labels might potentially trap our clients in organising their lives around the story of depression. As helpers, it is imperative that we use language to unpack such problematic stories, and identify stories that can potentially invite hope, strength, and resilience. I make reference to Amanda Worral’s presentation (2011) where the problem of social paranoia or “SP” was made external to the person, and conversations were geared towards understanding situations where SP was not as influential on the client, and exploring unique outcomes where SP did not have a strong hold on the client.
This small change in language may be liberating, as I have tried in my own sessions with clients. Clients no longer feel bounded to their mental health diagnosis (e.g. schizophrenia) but look at it as an entity that can be managed. It is through this language, there is a possibility of exploring unique outcomes and the preferred stories that had remained hidden in the dominant “problematic” story. The idea of unique outcomes is reminiscent of De Shazer’s discussions on exploring exceptions (1988) where this new preferred story is further explored and thickened.
Since my last experience with the narrative therapy intensive in November 2013, I have been using externalising conversations to relocate clients’ problems away from their perceptions of selves. In my processing with my clients, they have found this conversation novel, and yet at the same time they felt relieved when they notice that their problems do not always define them, in fact there are situations when these problems are less of a problem, and they are able to live their preferred stories!
As a practitioner, I have always been a firm believer of the strengths perspective (Saleebey, 2013). One of the struggles I had was how this perspective could be translated into observable practice. I am beginning to believe that aspects of narrative practice are truly in line with this perspective in social work. The other aspect is that of de-centered practice
The common mantra in a helping relationship is for the therapist to adopt a “neutral” stance. This stance has been postulated as useful in trying to look at clients’ experiences objectively, and assist in being non-judgmental when hearing our clients’ issues. I believe that such a stance, though well intentioned, may conversely lead the helper to ignore the power imbalances and social inequalities faced by our clients. This is where the idea of decentred practice comes into the fore. White (1997) discusses how the helping professional should take active measures to address power imbalances in the therapeutic relationship. One of which I assume is the non-expert position we take in the desire to invite collaboration, where we value clients’ lived stories over the perceptions and diagnoses of the helping professional.
It is within decentred practice that I locate some pertinent values of Social Work: that of ensuring social justice. As social workers we address inequalities not only in the environmental context that our clients are in, but also in the therapeutic relationship. The idea that we do not just work with the client (ala the psychodynamic approach) resonates with my strong belief in the person-in-environment perspective. The principle of collaboration is definitely respectful to the client.
I am attracted to the idea of bringing in witnesses to decentre the consciousness of the therapist and privelage the voices of those who have had similar or connecting experiences. However, there may be limitations for practice in Singapore where the experience of shame may present strongly, when one tells her story to strangers. The practice of help seeking within the dominant collectivist discourse may be seen as an act to be frowned upon, as one is expected to be able to resolve his problems by himself, or at least with support from immediate family members. In the dominant discourse, help seeking with a formal social work agency is an action of last resort, when one has exhausted all other means of attempting to resolve his problems.
The discourse of “not airing your dirty laundry” I experience with several of my clients, may be seen as just one of the available discourses in our society. As a social worker, I feel that a possible decentring practice could be the activity of “talking about talk”. By this I mean, the processing with the client about the relationship with me, and the beliefs surrounding expectations and concerns regarding help seeking and how they can share their stories as insider witnesses. It may also be useful to locate these beliefs within the context of cultural and gender informed perceptions. I am keen to explore how these ideas of allowing outsider witnesses to hear my clients’ stories, but within a culturally appropriate structure.
References
De Shazer. S. (1988). Clues: Investigating Solutions in Brief Therapy.
Saleebey, D. (2013). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice. Pearson Publications
White, M. (1997). Narratives of therapists’ lives. Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.
Comments