Fam Proc 33:357, 1994 CORRESPONDENCE Irreverent Thoughts about Dialogue To the Editor. Dialogue is often credited as being fundamental to enlightened family therapy. It has assumed a central place in modern and, in particular, postmodern discourse on family therapy for reasons that appear to be self-evident. Indeed, it has become the hallmark of the liguistic revolution in second-order family therapy that reality is radically (von Glaserfeld, 1984) and socially (Gergen, 1985 constructed in the dialogue between therapist and client. However, the understandings and uses of dialogue in the prevailing discourse on family therapy are only surface manifestations of deeper contradictions. Dialogue can produce results that are not only unhelpful but actually undercut the very possibility of its existence. Dialogue between therapists and clients is not only illusory but also undesirable: illusory, because it requires and assumes neutrality (Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1980) on the part of therapists, and undesirable, because it fails to confront the dynamics of disadvantage present between and among the therapists and clients themselves. Dialogue is impossible at this moment in time because differences in class, gender, and race between people in the wider society are unequal. Clients are often so demoralized and intimated by the circumstances inside (as curios, that is, as the subjects of systemic curiosity and inquiry) as well as outside (poverty, ill health, poor housing, and so on) the therapeutic context that they are effectively silenced. While the existence of unequal power relations may be acknowledged, there is generally little recognition of the barriers that this imbalance places on the kind of dialogue possible. Power imbalances make it impossible for therapists and clients to circumvent or transcend communication barriers and participate in, let alone co-construct, conversations unproblematically. Of course, there is little to gain by dispensing with the notion of dialogue altogether. Rather, it is important to avoid denying that therapists and clients are what Foucault (1982) refers to as "subjects," split between heterogeneous networks of power, interest, and desire, which cause them to assume ethical and political positions that are necessarily partial and partisan. Nevertheless, this is a condition to embrace and use as an opportunity to build a kind of interdependency that recognizes differences as "different strengths" and as "forces for change" (Lorde, 1984, p. 112). In the words of Audre Lorde (1984), "Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic. Only then does the necessity for interdependency become unthreatening" (p. 112). John Solas, Ph.D Lecturer in Applied Social Processes School of Social Science Queensland University of Technology Zillmere, Australia REFERENCES 1. Foucault, M., The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 4, 777-789, 1982. 2. Gergen, K., The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275, 1985. 3. Lorde, A., (1984). Sister outsider. New York: The Crossing Press. 4. Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G. and Prata, G., Hypothesizing-circularity-neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family Process, 19, 3-12, 1980. 5. von Glaserfeld, E., (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism (pp. 17-40). In P. Watzlawick (ed.), The invented reality. New York: W.W. Norton. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1

Irreverent Thoughts about Dialogue

Download PDF Report

Upload
john-solas
View
213
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Irreverent Thoughts about Dialogue

Fam Proc 33:357, 1994

CORRESPONDENCE

Irreverent Thoughts about Dialogue

To the Editor.Dialogue is often credited as being fundamental to enlightened family therapy. It has assumed a centralplace in modern and, in particular, postmodern discourse on family therapy for reasons that appear to be self-evident.Indeed, it has become the hallmark of the liguistic revolution in second-order family therapy that reality is radically (vonGlaserfeld, 1984) and socially (Gergen, 1985 constructed in the dialogue between therapist and client. However, theunderstandings and uses of dialogue in the prevailing discourse on family therapy are only surface manifestations of deepercontradictions. Dialogue can produce results that are not only unhelpful but actually undercut the very possibility of itsexistence.

Dialogue between therapists and clients is not only illusory but also undesirable: illusory, because it requires andassumes neutrality (Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1980) on the part of therapists, and undesirable, becauseit fails to confront the dynamics of disadvantage present between and among the therapists and clients themselves. Dialogueis impossible at this moment in time because differences in class, gender, and race between people in the wider society areunequal. Clients are often so demoralized and intimated by the circumstances inside (as curios, that is, as the subjects ofsystemic curiosity and inquiry) as well as outside (poverty, ill health, poor housing, and so on) the therapeutic context thatthey are effectively silenced. While the existence of unequal power relations may be acknowledged, there is generally littlerecognition of the barriers that this imbalance places on the kind of dialogue possible. Power imbalances make itimpossible for therapists and clients to circumvent or transcend communication barriers and participate in, let aloneco-construct, conversations unproblematically.

Of course, there is little to gain by dispensing with the notion of dialogue altogether. Rather, it is important to avoiddenying that therapists and clients are what Foucault (1982) refers to as "subjects," split between heterogeneous networksof power, interest, and desire, which cause them to assume ethical and political positions that are necessarily partial andpartisan. Nevertheless, this is a condition to embrace and use as an opportunity to build a kind of interdependency thatrecognizes differences as "different strengths" and as "forces for change" (Lorde, 1984, p. 112). In the words of AudreLorde (1984), "Difference must be not merely tolerated, but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which ourcreativity can spark like a dialectic. Only then does the necessity for interdependency become unthreatening" (p. 112).

John Solas, Ph.DLecturer in Applied Social ProcessesSchool of Social ScienceQueensland University of TechnologyZillmere, Australia

REFERENCES

1. Foucault, M., The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 4, 777-789, 1982. 2. Gergen, K., The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 266-275,

1985. 3. Lorde, A., (1984). Sister outsider. New York: The Crossing Press. 4. Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G. and Prata, G., Hypothesizing-circularity-neutrality: Three

guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family Process, 19, 3-12, 1980. 5. von Glaserfeld, E., (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism (pp. 17-40). In P. Watzlawick (ed.), The

invented reality. New York: W.W. Norton.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________