In this paper it is argued that modern and postmodern positions on reality and knowledge should not create a theoretical division in family therapy and that rather, by harnessing the two together, each may restrain the other. This combination creates the potential for drawing widely from the whole field of family therapy as well as challenging the separation of mainstream family therapy models from psychoanalysis. The concept of better story is used to replace both the polarized modern position of an objective discoverable truth and the polarized postmodern position of all stories having equal validity. It is suggested that better stories, which evolve in the meeting of family and therapist, may include those which are more congruent, object‐adequate, encompassing, holding, shared, emotional, conscious, just, provisional and hopeful.

a This paper attempts to highlight a common experience, but neglected topic, in family therapy: that of feeling understood. Aspects of postmodernism and contemporary psychoanalysis are revisited to create a theme of understanding as a fully relational activity -making sense together through language of that which lies beyond language. Some ideas on preparing to try to understand are discussed.

An argument is made for Bhaskar's critical realism as a more coherent, accountable and enabling philosophy of practice for systemic psychotherapy than the kinds of strong constructionism and pragmatism that are currently powerful in our field. Constructionism is positioned, not as an opponent to realism in the usual way, but -in a moderate version -as a necessary partner to give realism its critical edge. The dimensions of critical realism are sketched and its potential for the coherent support of practice is illustrated with an analysis of a moment of therapeutic change.Practitioner points • Critical realism supports the understanding of multiply interacting causal tendencies, from genetics to discourse, providing a new platform for eclecticism and integration and a renewed, though cautious, relationship with science. • The growing split between structuralism and poststructuralism is closed by critical realism, giving the potential for systemic family therapy to become a unified field. • The covert use of realism by clinicians is made accountable by critical realism.

Despite Gregory Bateson's interest in emotion and culture, the potential for understanding emotion systemically and culturally was lost very early in the mainstream development of family therapy, partly as a reaction to the dominant psychiatric‐psychoanalytic paradigm of North America at the time. In those pioneering years, to take emotion seriously was to risk appearing stuck in a one‐person psychology. In an interesting paradox, it is relational psychoanalysts and parent–infant researchers such as Beatrice Beebe and Frank Lachmann who have recently turned to systems theory to give a fuller account of emotions and emotional regulation in self and relationships. The author draws on their ideas together with the work of Peter Fonagy, Patricia Crittenden, Jessica Benjamin, Britt Krause and others to sketch briefly an ecosystemic theory of emotional expression. This sketch is used to give contextual meaning to two contrasting clinical topics in relation to anger: self‐harm and conduct ‘disorder’.

This paper is written for family therapists who may be curious but sceptical about psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. It examines a number of areas of misunderstanding within mainstream family therapy discourse (diversity, authoritarianism, terminology, blame, history and separation) which, the author believes, have acted to help maintain a false coherence for family therapy through a distorted construction of the otherness of psychoanalytic therapy and, in so doing, inhibited a potentially more productive relationship.