Paradoxical Communication as Interpersonal Influence

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the strategic uses of paradoxical communication in therapy. Eight more or less distinct uses of paradoxical communication are described, and the proposition is put forward that the paradoxical interventions associated with the Milan group differ from those described by Haley and the Palo Alto group only in that they appear to be designed to influence simultaneously the behavior of several family members. The currently popular idea that such interventions should, or even can, be based on a systemic hypothesis, if "hypothesis" is understood in its usual sense as a statement amenable to empirical testing, is explicitly questioned.

“Epistemology” as a Semantic Pollutant

“…John Lagos, for example, has shown that the Piagetian concepts of "schema," "assimilation" and "accomodation" can clarify many aspects of structural family therapy (Bogdan, 1983). In a previous article, I used ideas from the social psychology literature to explore what is involved in a successful restraint-fromchange intervention (Bogdan, 1982).…”

Paradox and Polarity: The Tao of Family Therapy

“…When a therapist displays acceptance of the system as it is, however, he or she preempts the no‐change side of the change‐permanence polarity within the system. “Active,” paradoxical techniques such as symptom prescription, benevolent ordeals, and positioning, (4, 48, 53, 55) all involve escalation of clients' behavior with regard to a particular problem. Such techniques generally evoke a rebound away from the therapist's extreme position.…”

Paradoxical intervention in psychotherapy

“…Indeed, the tendency to proclaim "paradox" at the drop of a hat has been strongly criticized by some writers in the field (Dell, 1981;Watzlawick, 1981) and it is clear that alternative explanations often exist for so-called paradoxical interventions. Bogdan ( 1982) would classify the tantrum intervention as an example of "adding an aversive element", because the use of time and place limitations on the expression of tantrums, together with the implications that tantrums nrusr be practiced, serves to make the whole idea aversive to the child. In learning theory terms, it seems quite possible that explanations such as time-out from reinforcement or stimulus narrowing (Bandura, 1969) could be sufficient to account for the rapid disappearance of a simple, single problem in a young child.…”