The Narrative Dance � A Practice Map for White's Therapy*

Susan Nicholson**

*A version of this paper was presented at the 1994 Australasian Family Therapy Conference in Sydney.

**Psychologist, Private practice.

Michael White�s and David Epston�s Narrative Therapy Approach. has stimulated a great deal of interest amongst practitioners both in Australia and overseas. While creative use of language is a cornerstone of the approach. this can also act as a barrier to therapists� attempts to understand and apply the model. This paper focuses on the essential aspects and core dimensions underlying White�s Narrative Approach. Utilising the analogy of a dance, a practice grid will be described to highlight key therapy steps.

INTRODUCTION

As a trainer and supervisor in Narrative Therapy, I saw the need. to develop teaching tools that would be of assistance to therapists studying and applying White�s and Epston�s Narrative Approach. As I pondered my own experience with the model, I recognised that the very richness of the model sometimes obscured the directions available in therapy.

Students frequently commented, �I feel like I have a fairly good grasp of the model, but when I get into the therapy room I seem to lose that knowledge�, In supervision they would typically ask, �Where do I go from here?� �What types of questions should I have in mind to ask now?�

The expressed need was for a clear therapy map, one that was readily accessible to the therapist in the therapy room. The idea of a �narrative dance� emerged from my conceptualisation of Narrative Therapy as akin to a dance, with the therapist applying some core concepts to facilitate movement across some central dimensions.

CORE CONCEPTS

When first proposing the narrative metaphor for therapy White explained:

In striving to make sense of life, persons face the task of arranging their experiences of events in sequences across time in such a way as to arrive at a coherent account of themselves and the world around them. Specific experiences of events of the past and present, and those that are predicted to occur in the future, must be connected in a lineal sequence to develop this account. This account can be referred to as a story or �self-narrative� (1989, page 19).

In his later writing. White emphasised that the narrative metaphor

should not be confused with that which proposes that stories function as a reflection of1ife or as a mirror for life. Instead, the narrative metaphor proposes that persons live their lives by stories � that these stories are shaping of life, and that they have real, not imagined, effects � and that these stories provide the structure of life (1992, page 123).

Narratives give us a sense of continuity and meaning but can never encompass the full richness of lived experience. People who are experiencing problems that lead them to seek counselling usually have problem-saturated narratives about themselves and their lives. But these narratives, like all narratives, are not the full story of their lives. There will always be a myriad of current and past experiences which can tell a different story, experiences that have often gone unnoticed and unstoried.

At the 1994 Family Therapy Networker Symposium. White commented:

Our lives are multi-Storied. No single story of life can be

free of ambiguity or contradiction. No self narrative can handle all the contingencies of life.

The role of therapy, he argued.

is to bring these alternate stories out of the shadows and to elevate them so that they play a far more central role in the shaping of people�s lives.

This process of creating possibilities for the discovery of preferred, solution-focused narratives involves two central stages. The first is de-construction of the dominant story. The second is the process of re-construction of a preferred, more freeing narrative.

Stage 1 : De-construction of the Dominant Story

Deconstruction is a process by which the dominant restraining narrative is unmasked and re-examined from a new angle. It is named, separated from the identity of the person, its background and feeding forces identified.

Extemalising conversations are central to this process, serving to separate the person from the problem and its associated dominant narrative. The therapist will ask questions that explore the impact of the problem on the person, on their relationships with others and on their view of themselves. This latter question (the impact of the problem on the person�s view of themself) is an important one as it tends to elicit some of the core aspects of the client�s dominant story. The influence of this dominant story is in turn explored in relation to its impact on the person�s life and significant relationships.

Questions are asked regarding the historical basis to the dominant narrative, questions regarding how the person has been recruited into this perspective of self. The therapist is interested both in the person�s private story and in the broader societal context. As suggested by the term, �exoticising the domestic�, the focus is on un-masking those taken-for-granted practices that underlie the dominant story, particularly practices of power relating to gender, culture, class and race.

White (1994) emphasises that �the personal story of self-narrative is not radically invented inside our heads. We don�t individually make up or invent these stories. Rather these stories are negotiated and distributed within various communities of persons and also in the institutions of our culture.�

Through this de-constructive dialogue the client�s dominant story is loosened up. Its identity is uncovered: both in terms of its historical construction and in terms of its impact on the client�s current life. Clients are encouraged to evaluate the influence of this story in their lives, to judge whether it is preferred or not preferred and to account for this evaluation. White refers to this process as �evaluating and justifying�.

Stage 2: Re-construction of a Preferred Narrative

As the person gains more distance from the dominant, problem-saturated description of self, they are more able to notice aspects of their life that contradict the earlier narrative. These events are referred to by White as �candidate unique outcomes�. The term �unique� is not, as some have argued (de Shazer, 1993, page 117), meant to imply that the event is a �one time event�. Rather, the event is unique in the sense that it could not have been predicted by the dominant story .

Unique outcome questions are described by White as falling within the realm of the landscape of action. While this term implies behaviours, in practice it embraces the client�s broader experience which includes both feelings and behaviours .

Once the unique outcomes have been identified, meaning is constructed around these events. Questions such as, �What do you think these events tell you about yourself?� �What different perspective does it give you about yourself as a person?�. �How do these experiences influence the way you see yourself?� are referred to by White as �landscape of consciousness questions�. They have the effect of moving from the realm of experience to the realm of meaning, exploring alternative stories that are suggested by these unique outcomes.

At this time the therapist. can draw upon �direct experience questions� such as those above (�What does this event suggest to you?) and �indirect experience (or experience of experience) questions� (White, 1988). The therapist might ask the client, �What significance do you think I might see in this step you have taken?�, or, �Who would be least surprised to see you take this step, and what would they say it indicated about you?�

The dimensions of time are employed in the questioning process. Beginning with the present, White will move to the past to explore a history to the preferred narrative, and into the future to hypothesize future steps.

Agency and curiosity are central to the model. The therapist�s stance is one of curiosity rather than certainty (Amundson, Stewart and Valentine, 1993), with a focus on assisting the client�s agency in the direction of their life.

CENTRAL DIMENSIONS

Within the Narrative Approach the therapist and client(s) move between and across the dimensions of time, and back and forth between experience and meaning. Dancing a kind of Narrative Shuffle, the therapist and client are involved in an action and meaning shuffle across time.

 

 

Table 1 � De-construction of the Dominant Story

Referring to Table One. the client�s presenting complaint usually falls within the realm of present/experience (cell 3). Such complaints include upsetting feelings (e.g depression. anger. jealousy, anxiety) and associated disturbing behaviours (e.g. phobic behaviour, isolation, tantrums). Less commonly, the presenting complaint may be the restraining dominant story itself, that is within cell 4 � present/meaning. This would include believing oneself to be worthless, a failure, socially inadequate, shy etc.

The first step in the de-constructive process involves engaging the client in an externalizing conversation regarding the impact of the presenting complaint on their life, relationships and view of themself. Through this process the problem is separated from the identity of the person and the underlying dominant narrative is unmasked.

The client is asked to evaluate and justify the impact of this dominant narrative in their life (cell 4).

The history to the dominant story (cell 1 � past/ experience) is then elicited through questions that explore how the individual came to hold these beliefs about themselves. The meaning he/she attributed to these past experiences is further elicited (cell 2 � past/meaning).

In White�s and Epston�s earlier work, the future implications of events continuing in the way that they have was explored (cell 5 � future/experience), through questions that they referred to as �collapsing time�. The implications of this were then addressed in terms of the impact this would have on the client�s view of themselves or of their relationships (cell 6 � future/meaning).

Stepping into future-based questions further assists the client to evaluate the likely future effects of the status quo thereby assisting in decision making about whether they are preferred or not preferred.

Table 2 � Re-construction of the Preferred Story

The entry point into the development of an alternative narrative (Table Two) is the discovery of behaviours that do not fit with the dominant plot. These unique outcomes fall within the present/experience cell (Table Two � cell 3).

Questions that explore the. significance of these events in the client�s life elicit an alternative narrative (cell 4 � present/meaning), the implications of which the client is asked to evaluate (evaluate and justify).

If the unique outcomes and the associated alternative story are evaluated as preferred by the client, then the therapist works towards drawing out a history to these behaviours (cell 1 � past/experience). Narrative therapy is not about creating a history; rather, it is predicated on the notion that a history already exists, but has not been noticed and given credence. The meaning attributed to these past predictors (cell 2) represents the �new/old story� (Hewson, 1991), i.e. the hidden narrative that has flowed in the shadows of the individual�s life.

This story flows into a future script (cell 6 � future/ meaning) through a process of exploring the implications of the preferred narrative continuing to hold ground in the person�s life. The implications of this for future experience are also elicited (cell 5 � future/experience), with an emphasis on. �telling others�, i.e. putting others in touch with the client�s discoveries about themself.

Table 3� The Dance Floor

In order to demonstrate the fit between the model I am proposing and White�s work, let�s examine the case of Elizabeth from his classic article, �De-construction and therapy� (1992). White�s therapy with Elizabeth will be mapped on the �Dance Floor� in Table Three, each intervention being linked with a number from 1�9.

Elizabeth, a sole parent, presented with complaints about the ways in which she was being treated by her two daughters, who were l2 and 15 years of age. Elizabeth was concerned about their �persistent antagonism...frequent tantrums...their abuse of her, and their apparent unhappiness�.

White first asks about �how these problems were affecting the lives of family members, and about the extent to which they were interfering in family relationships�. (I). He then asks about �how these problems had been influencing her thoughts about herself: What did she believe these thoughts reflected about herself as a parent � and �as a mother�? (2}.

White then enquired as to the impact of this view of herself as a failure, on her relationships with her children (1). Elizabeth gave details regarding the �guilt she experienced over not having sustained a more ideal family environment, of her highly tenuous and apologetic interaction with her daughters, and of the extent to which she felt bound to submit herself to their evaluation�.

This externalizing conversation involves moving back and forth between cells 1 & 2, exploring the impact of the problem on Elizabeth�s view of herself and the subsequent impact of this dominant view of self on her relationships. Once a clear description of the dominant restraining narrative (failure) and its associated implications (guilt, tenuous relationships) has been elicited, White asks Elizabeth, �Was the havoc that the view of failure and its associated guilt was wreaking in her life and her relationships acceptable to her?� (2). Elizabeth responded �in no uncertain terms that the current status of her relationship with her children was quite untenable�.

�I encouraged Elizabeth to explore how she had been recruited into this view that she was a failure as a mother and as a person and about the mechanisms by which her guilt had been provoked?� (3). White explicitly elicits the societal context to this recruitment, asking �Did she think: that women were more vulnerable to the view that they had failed their children?� These questions brought forth Elizabeth�s experience of abuse at the hands of her former husband and the prevalence of mother blaming in our culture.

White explores some of the areas in Elizabeth�s life where she had not been co-opted into this view of failure. �In response to this, Elizabeth identified instances in several areas of her life in which she had been able to resist this tyranny.� (4). In asking Elizabeth whether she saw this resistance as a positive or negative development in her life, she responded that it was positive and that it �reflected that she had not totally submitted to these negative views of who she was...� (5).

�Then through a series of questions I encouraged Elizabeth to trace the history of this refusal. In the process of this she identified a couple of historical figures who had witnessed some developments in her capacity to protest certain injustices� (6).

�In our subsequent discussion. Elizabeth put both of us in touch with alternative versions of who she might be, versions of herself that she clearly preferred� (5).

�As Elizabeth�s enthusiasm for this alternative knowledge of who she was as a person became more apparent. I discussed with her the importance of seizing the initiative in putting others in touch with what she had discovered� (8). �Elizabeth went away determined to have more say about who she was (9) and to decline her children�s invitations for her to subject herself to their constant evaluations and surveillance� (8).

White and Elizabeth do not cover the entire dance floor. but the steps that they do take are representative of the more common ones.

DOMINANT NARRATIVE - PREFERRED NARRATIVE

Table 4 � The Third Dimension

As evidenced by the example of Elizabeth above, there is a third dimension running through each of the cells. This dimension involves the orientation of the questions. Are questions asked from the perspective of self, significant others, society or the therapist? In de-constructing the dominant story, the focus is more on the impact of self, significant others, society and therapist on the dominant story and vice versa. This process of questioning serves to loosen up, de-stabilise and reduce the substance of the dominant restraining narrative.

During re-construction of the preferred narrative, questions are asked regarding the different perspectives of the client, significant others, society and therapist. The client is asked direct experience questions (�How do you perceive the significance of this event?�) and indirect experience questions (�What significance would you guess that I � or � your supervisor � or � your best friend might attribute to this event?�). Such questions serve to add layers, further substance and foundation to the preferred story.

Table Four also indicates the usual entry points (=) into the development of the preferred story. Practice suggests that movement from de-construction to re-construction genera1ly occurs within the same time dimension. That is, having explored the impact of the dominant story on the person�s current life, there is a natural opening to identify unique outcomes, by asking about instances when the person was able to withstand or act in opposition to this dominant story. Similarly, having explored a history to the dominant story, there is an opening also to ask about events from the past that would imply an alternative story. These openings are two-way, in the sense that it is often very helpful to ask the client to compare their life as construed by the preferred story with that as it was dictated by the dominant story .

KEY DANCE STEPS

Table 5- Key De-constructive Dance Steps

Table Five offers a summarised version of the basic structure of key questions within each cell of the de-constructive dance. They represent the essence of the question rather than examples of actual questions, for the latter will of course vary depending on the nature of the externalisation, the metaphors used, the language of the client etc.

The numbers indicate the more usual order in which. the questions are asked, although again in practice it is usual for there to be a lot more shuffling from side to side and forwards and backwards until a collaborative rhythm develops. This is particularly true in the early stages of eliciting a dominant story, when there is likely to be a lot of back and forth. steps taken between the present/experience and present/meaning cells.

During the re-constructive phase of therapy. all of the cells are likely to be covered. Table Six offers a summary of the basic essence of the more commonly asked questions, with a number usual stepping order, indicated by a corresponding number.

 

Table 6 � Key Re-constructive Dance Steps

DISCUSSION

There are a number of reasons why the dance metaphor is a useful one for both understanding and teaching Narrative Therapy. Firstly, it. suggests a fluid, moving process of gliding across, backwards and forwards in such a way that the total effect becomes much more alive-and meaningful than any of the individual steps.

The dance metaphor also begs the question of who leads whom? When men and women are dancing it is often assumed that the man will take the lead. Couples of the same sex will often be heard to debate, �Who will be the boy?� A narrative therapy would no doubt express curiosity regarding the implications of these beliefs about the proper way to dance, and draw out their underlying historical basis. Dancers would be encouraged to evaluate the impact of these �rules� on their dancing experience. If these roles were found to be limiting for one or both of the partners, they would be asked about any alternative experiences that stood outside the dominant perspective of the man leading the woman. Are these experiences preferred? Why? How did they take such a radical course? How might these experiences impact on their experience of dancing, their view of themselves and on their relationship?

While there is undoubtedly a power difference between the therapist and the client in any form of therapy, Narrative Therapy emphasises the importance of a collaborative approach. Active steps are taken to address the difference in power through processes such as the reflecting team and de-construction of the therapy process with the client. Both therapist and client take a turn at leading. The therapist leads with questions that are focused on the client�s agency in relation to their dominant and preferred stories. As the client evaluates the role that these stories play in their life. he or she leads the therapist in understanding the unique significance of their own particular journey. Through this process of mutual curiosity, both therapist and client find themselves exploring new domains.

CONCLUSION

A phrase that is almost a family therapy cliche is apt warning at this point: �The map is not the territory�. In this paper I have reduced a complex theory and practice to some discrete key dimensions. While this offers a map for practice, the territory of therapy is far more diverse, with a myriad of unexpected landscapes for which this map can only serve as a basic guide.

Acknowledgement

Just as a dance usually involves more than one person, the development of this model was not a solitary process. Daphne Hewson played a significant role in the development of the model � refining, enlarging, questioning and supporting.

References

Amundsen, J., Stewart, K. and Valentine. L., 1993. Temptations of Power and Certainty, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 111 -23.

de Shazer, S., 1993. Commentary: de Shazer & White: Vive la Difference, in Gilligan. S & Price. R (Eds.). Therapeutic Conversations, W.W Norton and Co., New York.

Hewson. D., 1991. From Laboratory to the therapy room: prediction questions for re-constructing the new �old story, Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 3, 5�12.

Wbite, M.,1988. The Process of questioning: A therapy of literary merit, Dulwich Centre Publications, Winter: 8�14.

Wbite, M. & Epston, D., 1989. Literate means to therapeutic ends, Adelaide, Dulwicb Centre Publications.

White, M., 1992. De-Construction and Therapy, in Epston and White, Experience Contradiction. Narrative and Imagination, Adelaide, Dulwicih Centre Publications.

While, M., 1994. Re-authoring Lives, F2mily Therapy Networker Symposium, Resource Link Audio-tape, Georgia.