Orthodoxy in family therapy practice as servant or tyrant

Abstract

This paper considers some of the pitfalls of a single-model approach to family therapy. It does not argue a 'right' way of practising family therapy, but proposes that the therapist needs to have available a range of approaches on which to draw. This also raises certain problems for training in family therapy, which are highlighted. A case is discussed in the light of a number of perspectives, to demonstrate how approaches can be used in complementary fashion. Finally, reference is made to some of the agency constraints which also make it difficult to practise any one model in a 'pure' form.

Beyond orthodoxy—a commentary on Prata and Masson

“…The early attempts of family therapists like Minuchin (1975) and Selvini to identify specific constellations whilst interesting and promoting initial clarity are in the long-run likely to obscure a much more accurate picture. This has been highlighted by others more recently (Jenkins, 1985: Kog et al, 1985.…”

Precipitating crises in families: patterns which connect

“…'Neutrality' is a very explicit therapeutic position to adopt, (Cecchin, 1987), and is as likely to engender crisis by refusal to take sides as is the consistent side-taking which often characterizes structural work. If the therapist can be comfortable in the knowledge that her work inevitably includes precipitating crisis in some way or other and that all models contain that assumption, whether explicitly or not, she will worry less about which is the right model (Jenkins, 1985). She will also have a useful general yardstick for whether and how changes are being achieved.…”

Inside out, or outside in: meeting with couples

“…These are just that – structures – within which the therapist engages intimately with her clients. Different levels of description can help the therapist avoid becoming too focused on a single perspective (Goldner et al , 1990; Jenkins, 1985; Luepnitz, 1988), although understanding these theoretical perspectives will not of itself ensure that there is a real therapeutic encounter. Papp and Imber‐Black (1996) elegantly reconcile some of the apparent contradictions of different therapeutic models by thinking in terms of themes, while safe practice comes from self‐questioning about the constantly evolving nature of the therapeutic relationship (Sandler et al ., 1992), influenced by gender, ages of the client, culture, ethnicity, (religious) beliefs, the nature of the difficulties presented and how they resonate in different ways with similar personal considerations for the therapist.…”