Strategy and Intervention Versus Nonintervention: A Matter of Theory?*

Abstract

The question of whether or not intervention and strategy are necessary components of competent therapy is described and related to the metaphorical assumptions of underlying theory. Passive listening and expert interpretations are consequences of psychodynamic theory. Active manipulation of social structure and strategic intervention into feedback are described as consequences of the mechanical assumptions of structural and cybernetic theory. Conversational participation and non intervention are described as necessary consequences of hermeneutic and linguistic approaches to therapy. It is concluded that different theoretical assumptions yield different conclusions regarding the nature of therapy and human problems. From this perspective the question of Intervention Versus Non-Intervention is more a matter of the theory held than a question to be answered in terms of the "right" or "adequate" thing to do or not do.

The real as illusion: deconstructing power in family therapy

“…However, as Goolishian and Anderson (1992) foretold, the longstanding debate over issues of knowledge, certainty, control, power and intervention in family therapy has continued. Currently it takes the form of how to resolve feminist and Foucauldian notions of power with social constructionist sensibilities about hierarchy and intervention in therapy.…”

“…Deconstruction opens up the debate between interventionists and noninterventionists, recognizing the necessity of a double reading of power in therapy. Goolishian and Anderson (1992) point in this direction by recasting the debate in terms of theoretical preference: it is just a question of the 'theory held' by different therapists. However, they still attempt to dissolve the issue in a hermeneutic solution which begs the question.…”

“…As Goolishian and Anderson (1992) concede, what really matters is not epistemology but the translation of theory into the actual social practice of family therapy. Here conceivably a postmodern narrative therapist could manifest a personal ideology of control and desire to influence.…”

“…In hermeneutic family therapy at the level of practice, there is 'knowing' and 'not knowing', 'intervening' and 'not-intervening', with such dualities not inverted but deconstructed in the Derridean sense. Goolishian and Anderson (1992) describe their 'not knowing but curious' stance in therapy as follows: 'The therapist is always on the way to co-understanding with clients but never understands' (p. 13). To understand implies that the therapist has a preconceived expert knowledge while the client remains ignorant, which closes off conversation and the possibility of change.…”

“…(Dostoyevsky,The Idiot,p. 602) In a sense Goolishian and Anderson's (1992) hermeneutic stance is that of 'irony': the therapist 'knows' that he/she 'doesn't know'. 'Not knowing' is a kind of 'knowing'.…”