Working with Metaphor in Narrative Therapy

Working with Metaphor in Narrative Therapy Teresa Legowski Keith Brownlee

ABSTRACT. Very few approaches allow the client generated metaphor to be the central theme of therapy without prescriptive and interpretative intervention from the therapist. This paper explores the development of client generated metaphors from the narrative therapy perspective. The temptation to follow therapist directed metaphors is discussed. The process of externalization as the development of a client-generated metaphor is considered. We discuss the use of metaphor in generating solutions that consider a continuum of options which reflects the complexity and depth of many clients’ ‘problem-saturated’ stories. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: Website: E 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Metaphor, narrative therapy, externalization

Historically, the dominant use of metaphor in clinical practice has been largely a therapist directed activity (Bergman, 1985; Combs & Freedman, 1990; Dielman, Stevens & Lopez, 1984; Dolan, 1991; Haley, 1981; Matthews, 1984; Peeks, 1989; Piercy & Tubbs, 1996; Teresa Legowski, is Certified Social Worker and Addictions Counsellor at the Sister Margaret Smith Centre, St. Joseph’s Hospital, 35 North Algoma Street, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 5G7 Canada. Keith Brownlee, is Associate Professor, Department of Social Work, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 5E1 Canada. Address correspondence to Dr. Keith Brownlee, Department of Social Work, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 5E1, Canada. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, Vol. 12(1) 2001 E 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

19

20

JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

Shilts & Ray, 1991; Waters & Lawrence, 1993). This has included stories, tasks, rituals designed by the therapist, anecdotes and metaphoric objects used during therapy. Some methods are therapist directed but client generated, such as art therapy, play therapy, letter writing, journaling, audio and video taping and psychodrama (Dielman, Stevens & Lopez, 1984; Gil, 1988 & 1991; Haley, 1981; James, 1989; James & Nasjleti, 1993; Peeks, 1989). Recent trends in therapeutic practice, especially narrative therapy, have been to carefully scrutinize and eschew dominance by the therapist, including how metaphors are generated and incorporated within therapy. In this paper we examine both implicit and direct metaphors associated with narrative therapy that when uncritically introduced can inadvertently contribute to disempowerment. Metaphor is from the Greek word metaphora meaning a transfer. Individually, meta means along with, beyond, while phore means thing or part bearing (Random House/Webster’s College Dictionary, 1996). Thus the roots of the word metaphor suggest the meaning ‘going beyond the part bearing,’ something that transfers from one to the other thereby extending or introducing new meaning. The essential value of metaphor for therapy lies in the transfer of meaning, the capacity to bridge concepts and the capacity to extend the imagination into recognizing new possibilities. Schön (1979) argues that in the therapeutic context, metaphor can be thought of as referring to, ‘‘a certain kind of product–a perspective or frame, a way of looking at things–and to a certain kind of process by which new perspectives on the world come into existence’’ (p. 254). It is this idea of metaphor occurring at multiple levels within therapy that we wish to address in this paper. At the first level is the implicit metaphor, the metaphor that structures the frame of reference for therapy, such as ‘therapy is problem solving,’ or ‘the family is a system.’ The second is the direct use of metaphor, the introduction of metaphor as content in the therapy and as a revisioning process with the client. NARRATIVE AS A METAPHOR The implicit metaphor in narrative therapy is the notion of narrative itself. The idea that it is through language and stories that our understanding and experience of the world is structured. A narrative metaphor is based on the premise that ‘reality’ is constituted by society, that

Teresa Legowski and Keith Brownlee

21

it is constructed and maintained by the members of a particular society in the stories of daily interaction and across generations (Freedman & Combs, 1996). These social metaphors are regarded as influencing and shaping individual metaphors. Thus, problems are viewed as being located within their cultural context as well as individual experience (Zimmerman & Dickerson, 1996). White and Epston (1990) consider social science analogies such as: positivism, game theory or role theory as emerging from the socio-political context. They regard the structuring of psychotherapy according to these metaphors as a continuation of the ‘unitary truth discourses’ of the dominant culture (White & Epston, 1990, p. 28). Based on the postmodern postulate that reality is subjective and individually constructed, White and Epston (1990) assert that there is no essential or true narrative. Each individual’s story is a situated, local discourse. Meaning is derived through the structuring of experience into stories and the performance of these stories is constitutive of lives and relationships. Thus narrative therapy ‘‘is about the retelling and reliving of stories’’ (Freedman & Combs, 1996, p. 33). Since the metaphor of narrative becomes the means through which the therapist filters and understands the client’s experiences and the mode through which the therapist orientates the discussion, narrative itself is an implicit metaphor. It shapes the form of the therapy, determining the questions that can be asked as well as the ones that will not be asked, and gives rise to the very nature of the encounter. Simply choosing this construction of how knowledge is gained and experience is structured is to apply a metaphor that is transparent and seldom the focus of the conversation between client and therapist. The risk is that this inherent invisibility removes from the client the possibility of choice. The client can not ask that the therapist refrain from viewing the world in narrative terms or to adopt a different frame of reference. Such a request could only be viewed in terms of the frame of reference that is being protested and would initiate an impasse. If the therapist is to remain true to the dictum of collaboration and not to emerge as the senior partner in the relationship, then the therapist should declare his or her frame of reference. Calaghan, Naugle, and Follette (1996) note that ‘‘Clients often present for therapy with preconceptions regarding how they should engage therapy as well as what they expect from a therapist’’ (p. 385). A client for instance may expect that the therapist will listen to their concerns and then offer the

22

JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

client practical advice. Expectations about therapy may arise from any number of sources, such as cultural expectations, opinions of friends or the media (Wright & Davis, 1994). When this advice is not forthcoming, or expectations are not met, the client may experience considerable frustration. A response that dismisses such expectations may represent a negation and subjugation of the client’s construction of ‘reality’ and a privileging of the therapist’s construction. The individual seeking therapy is entitled to know the implications for the relationship of the narrative frame of reference as well as how therapy may unfold. Winslade, Crocket, and Monk (1997) describe the dilemma created by a client asking, ‘‘I would like you to tell me the current thinking on how homosexuality occurs’’ (p. 59). The dilemma presented by this request was for a narrative therapist to assume the mantle of expert. By offering an opinion, the therapist would be cast in the role of having privileged information regarding the aetiology of homosexuality. Winslade et al. discuss how a response to this question that accepted her invitation to assume the expert position would thereafter establish the relationship as expert and client. Winslade et al. note that this was in fact what occurred and they reported it as a ‘second best option’ (p. 59). It is interesting to note, however, that in their discussion of this issue and the options considered, an honest description of the narrative metaphor as a frame of reference was not presented as one of them. It is the contention of the present paper that a reflective approach to practice would represent an attempt to be explicit about the sources of knowledge that inform practice. It would require the therapist to be prepared to have a conversation with the client about narrative and to discuss with the client the implications of what it represents as an organizing metaphor. Thus, from the reflective position it would be regarded as more appropriate to respond to the question posed by Winslade et al’s. client by simply stating how answering this question would introduce an imbalance in the relationship that they were not comfortable with. This would surely lead to a deeper conversation about the role of the therapist and the process of change in narrative practice. We contend that a conversation of this nature should occur whenever the client makes it clear that they have expectations that appear to be at odds with the values of narrative practice. We also contend that the client has a right to be informed about the therapist’s orientation before they even meet. We regard the clarification of infor-

Teresa Legowski and Keith Brownlee

23

mation about orientation as an important first step with clients. It is information that would be included in any discussion of what the client is looking for from therapy and whether they are comfortable with the relationship with that particular therapist and within the context of the particular agency. Some agencies have specialist orientations, such as 12 steps, cognitive behavioural or a solution focussed approach and this too should be clarified. EXTERNALIZATION AS BUILDING A METAPHOR Narrative therapy as presented by White and Epston (1990) does not specifically use the term metaphor when describing the process of story telling. Rather, they use the term analogy, or ‘story analogy.’ Freedman and Combs (1996) use the term ‘narrative metaphor’ side by side with ‘story analogy.’ The act of telling a story is in itself the metaphor. White (1989) states that externalizing is the key to the re-authoring of stories. The process of externalization is ‘‘an approach that encourages persons to objectify, and at times, to personify, the problems that they experience as oppressive’’ (White, 1989, p. 1). Externalizing allows the problem to be regarded as a separate and external entity to the person or relationship. This opens the door for the client to describe themselves and the problem in relationship with each other. By experiencing themselves as separate from the problem people begin to, notice other possibilities spontaneously. They begin to appreciate other self-narratives. In fact, they begin to experience themselves differently as persons. (Zimmerman & Dickerson, 1996, p. 77) They begin to notice how the processes of power have become personally internalized and that the problem exists within a context of oppression (Adams-Westcott & Isenbart, 1996). Narrative therapy has become well known for the names that were developed for externalizing the problems encountered in practice such as ‘Sneaky Poo’ (White, 1984), ‘Fear Busting and Monster Taming’ (White, 1985), ‘King Tiger and Roaring Tummies’ (Wood, 1988) and ‘Itchy Fingers’ (Menses & Durant, 1986). The very nature of these terms alone attest to the fact that they are essentially therapist initiated. It is highly unlikely that such catchy terms are consistently offered by

24

JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

such a wide variety of clients. Winslade, Crocket, and Monk (1997) refer to this issue and describe ‘Sneaky Poo’ as having become something of a cliché. However, they refer to it as having lost some of its therapeutic freshness rather than raising questions about the therapist directedness that it implies. A further limitation of the use of such terms is their invitation to dichotomous thinking. The client may see him or herself in a ‘problem-saturated’ situation and then create a label that invites the client to view the problem in relatively simple, unitary terms where the solution is to achieve the opposite to the label. A situation in which ‘Poo’ is no longer sneaky or ‘temper’ is tamed and so on. White (1991) has described this process as follows, As persons separate from the dominant or totalizing stories that are constitutive of their lives, it becomes more possible for them to orient themselves to aspects of experience that contradict these knowledges. (p. 29) The limitation occurs if the naming of a problem introduces an undue restriction on the range of possible options for the client. In many situations the problem is more complex than implied by the simplicity of the label. For example, a person experiencing loneliness is likely to see defeating loneliness as experiencing popularity and sociability. However, there are many shades of meaning lost between the polarities of loneliness and popularity if we choose to focus strictly on the dichotomy of the presence or the absence of the problem. The therapist could take the opportunity to explore with the client some of the benefits that loneliness may provide and some of the negative consequences of popularity. The client might find that when she feels lonely she writes poetry and participates in woodworking and knitting. Loneliness may be a vehicle for creativity for this person. Popularity may impose a lack of privacy. More diverse metaphors for externalizing could incorporate these multiple meanings since the image is able to contain whole aspects and diverse perspectives. In our own work, we have experimented with inviting the client to give the problem a proper name or an occupation, such as ‘Ralph the robber.’ In many cases, especially with children, we would encourage them to draw a picture of the problem, which also promotes externalization. If the problem was objectified by the client, metaphorically depicting the problem as a wall or a whip, for example, we would ask

Teresa Legowski and Keith Brownlee

25

questions that would elicit a detailed description of the object. Questions such as: how tall and how thick is the wall; where are you in relation to the wall; what is on the inside/outside of the wall; how does this wall make you feel? Essentially, the process of personalizing or objectifying the problem, depicting it in a form outside the person, talking about it as if it had separate motives and a life of its own, is creating a metaphor of the problem. The externalization process creates a bridge from the individual to culture and society through the use of story telling. Metaphor provides a bridge. It gives the externalized concept an image a role about which the client can then converse. Thus, metaphor easily affords itself to the telling of the person’s story. The influence of the problem can be traced through the story line of, for example, how Ralph the robber is effecting the family’s life. By using the metaphor created by the client, the therapist elicits the client’s story of the problem. Descriptions, actions, communications the metaphor may have, are drawn from the client by questions asked by the therapist. Sources for metaphor generation are sought in dreams, art, poetry writing or a combination of these. On some occasions we have noticed clients begin with art and then create a poem that accompanies the work of art, thus including multiple layers of meaning and allowing for a greater appreciation of the interconnectedness of the issues before the client. One example of such a metaphor was a dream recounted by a client that became the basis for a meaningful metaphor for her life. The dream was about the client playing poker with a number of other players. One player tried to cheat. The client was aware that this player was dealing incorrectly, hiding cards and using other forms of cheating. A large amount of money was at stake. The client described the other woman as sneaky. Yet the client still ended up with the winning hand. In reality, the client was a woman who had engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour with other individuals. She saw the dream as representing three facets of her own behaviour. The first is the woman that tries to be sneaky and get away with illegal behaviour. The second is the woman that is wise, accepting and understanding and could act as a mediator. The third is the woman who could act as a mediator, but was choosing to play cards with the ‘sneaky’ woman. The client identified the dream as a metaphor for her own moral development. She used this metaphor to highlight the different roles that she could find herself playing and the different

26

JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

strengths, choices and skills that she possessed. Questions posed by the therapist enabled the client to externalize these roles without losing their complexity. This complexity could be lost with a dichotomous metaphor of good and bad behaviour. This formulation is empowering as it enables her to realise that she is making a choice. This method of generating a metaphor depends on the client’s willingness and ability to use imagination. Not all people will want to participate. It is important to be sensitive to this position and careful to follow the lead of the client by inviting them into the process. This is especially evident in cases of a person seeking therapy who has an intractable mental illness or a physiological condition. Naturally, the person would like to be rid of the problem, but it is probably unlikely. The creation of a metaphor affords the possibility of a metaphorical dialogue between the person and the problem, an arena in which negotiations could take place, so to speak. White (1989) has begun to address this issue in terms of re-authoring the stories about personhood and engages the client in ‘externalizing conversations’ (Hart, 1995). Tomm (1989) discusses this issue from a different perspective by calling the process of externalizing the problem as a ‘progressive,’ ‘continuous process’ in which: It is . . . extremely important for the therapist to remain mindful of the problematic effects of high expectations for constructive change. This is especially true when working with patients struggling with chronic problems. (p. 57) No story is set in polarity; rather it exists in the context of self, culture and relationship, which is full of diversity. The therapist needs to understand that a complete elimination of the problem is not realistically possible. The role that the problem plays in the person’s life needs to be investigated within the framework of the metaphor. In this way the therapist does not ‘‘inadvertently contribute to persons’ experiences of oppression’’ (White, 1989, p. 6). In order to discover the healthy intentions that may be embedded within a client’s unhealthy behaviour, we have to be willing to listen to their whole story, both their successes and their failures. We cannot simply project competent striving upon them; we have to find where it truly lives in them. (Waters & Lawrence, 1993, pp. 55-56)

Teresa Legowski and Keith Brownlee

27

The above process stresses that the metaphor be client generated. The therapist does not create nor interpret the images, but merely asks questions to develop and ‘thicken’ (Geertz, 1978) the metaphor and the story. By creating their own metaphors, clients are using their own resources in storying, reframing and solving their problems. This is an empowering process since it depends on the clients’ weaving of their own images, from the past, present and into the future. If the therapist interprets the images or suggests images, the meaning of the metaphor may be misconstrued, since a metaphor can have a multiplicity of meanings. A post-modernist approach would allow the client to speak to their own experience and define the meaning of their experience within the context of their own life and culture. REFERENCES Adams-Westcott, J. & Isenbart, D. (1996). Creating preferred relationships: The politics of recovery from child sexual abuse. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 1, 13-30. Bergman, J. (1985). Fishing for Baracuda. New York: W.W. Norton. Calaghan, G. M., Naugle, A. E., & Follette, W. C. (1996). Useful constructions of the client-therapist relationship. Psychotherapy, 33, 381-390. Combs, G. & Freedman, J. (1990). Symbol, story and ceremony: Using metaphor in individual and family therapy. New York: W.W. Norton. Dielman, C., Stevens, K. & Lopez, F. (1984). The strategic use of symptoms as metaphors in family therapy: Some case illustrations. Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 3, 29-34. Dolan, Y. (1991). Resolving sexual abuse. New York: W.W. Norton. Freedman, J. & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York: W.W. Norton. Geertz, C. (1978). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gil, E. (1990). Treatment of adult survivors of childhood abuse. Walnut Creek, CA: Launch Press. Gil, E. (1991). The healing power of play: Working with abused children. New York: Guilford Press. Haley, J. (1981). Problem-solving therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Limited. James, B. (1989). Treating traumatized children: New insights and creative interventions. Lexington, MS: Lexington Books. James, B. & Nasjleti, M. (1993). Treating sexually abused children and their families. Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books. Matthews, W. (1984). Ericksonian and Milan therapy: An intersection between circular questioning and therapeutic metaphor. Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 3, 16-25. Menses, G. & Durant, M. (1986). Contextual residential care: The application of the

28

JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

principle of cybernetic therapy to the residential treatment of irresponsible adolescents and their families. Dulwhich Centre Review, 3-14. Peeks, B. (1989). Strategies for solving children’s problems understood as behavioural metaphors. Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 8, 22-25. Piercy, F.P. & Tubbs, C. (1996). Tapping internal resources: Guided imagery in couple therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 15, 53-64. Schön, D. A. (1979). Genarative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shilts, L.G. & Ray, W. A. (1991). Therapeutic letters: Pacing with the system. Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 10, 92-99. Tomm, K. (1989) Externalizing the problem and internalizing personal agency. Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 8, 54-59. Waters, D. & Lawrence, E. (1993). Creating a therapeutic vision. The Family Therapy Networker, 17, 53-58. White, M. (1984). Psuedo-encopresis: From avalanche to victory, from viscious to virtuous cycles. Family Systems Medicine, 2, 150-160. White, M. (1985). Fear Busting and Monster Taming: An approach to the fears of young children. Dulwich Centre Review, 29-34. White, M. (1989). The externalizing of the problem and the reauthoring of lives and relationships. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Summer, 1-17. White, M. (1991). Deconstruction and therapy. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 3, 21-40. White, M. & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: W.W. Norton. Winslade, J., Crocket, K., & Monk, G. (1997). The therapeutic relationship. In Monk, G., Winslade, J., Crocket, K., & Epston, D. (Eds.). Narrative therapy in practice: The archaeology of hope. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Wood, A. (1988). King Tiger and Roaring Tummies: A novel way of helping young children and their families change. Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 49-63. Wright, J. H. & Davis, D. (1994). The therapeutic relationship in cognitive-behavioral therapy: Patient perceptions and therapist responses. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 1, 25-45. Zimmerman, J.L. & Dickerson, V.C. (1996). If problems talked: Narrative therapy in action. New York: Guilford Press.