Therapeutic challenges of multi-being
Kenneth J. Gergena
This paper emerges from an attempt to shift the locus of understanding
human action from the individual to relationship. In doing so we come to
see persons as multi-beings, that is, as constituted within multiple
relationships from which they emerge with multiple, incoherent, and
often conflicting potentials. Therapy, in this context, becomes a collaborative
relationship with the aim of transforming the clienťs broader
relational network. In this view, schooling in a singular practice of therapy
artificially limits the therapisťs potential, and thus the possible outcomes
of the client­therapist relationship. Invited, then, is a reflective eclecticism,
in which the myriad potentials of both the therapist and client are
considered in tandem. This view is illustrated by contrasting three
relational conditions in which clients find themselves, each of which
invites a different form of self-expression from the therapist.
I am reviewing the first draft of Freďs dissertation. On one page I find
myself scribbling in the margin, `this is inconsistent with the previous
chapter'; on other pages I write, `incoherenť, `colloquiaľ, or `awkward
phrasing'. I also have my moments of congratulation: `eleganť, `good
poinť, or `nicely prepareď. I proceed with little reflection. I am simply
participating in a tradition that aims to educate individuals to become
clear and coherent in their thinking. Yet there is a certain irony in my
comments to Fred. As I sit here writing this paper, I am filled with
doubts and turmoil. I am aware that for much that I wish to say, I also
carry a critical voice. At each sentence I am confronted with other ways
of putting things, and dozens of criteria for judging. It is a major effort
to suppress all this nattering, but I am in peril if I do not. Specifically, if I
do share the full cacophony with you, the reader, you will soon respond
as I did to Fred. `This is totally incoherent!'
The view of the ideal person as a coherent unity has a long tradition
in the West. It is evident in the Christian tradition, with its emphasis
on the purity of the soul, and the clear divide between good and evil.
The philosopher Stephen Toulmin (2001) traces the emphasis on
r The Association for Family Therapy 2008. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Journal of Family Therapy (2008) 30: 335­350
0163-4445 (print); 1467-6427 (online)
a
The Taos Institute and Swarthmore College, Department of Psychology, Swarthmore,
PA 19081, USA
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
logical coherence to the rise of Modernism, and particularly the
influence of the Cartesian view of reason as the centre of human
action. Good reasoning is clear and logically consistent, ideally
approximating mathematics. The maturing individual should thus
aspire to a coherent way of thinking about the world, one that
integrates disparate facts into a single, overarching theory. These
same values are also inscribed in clinical practice. George Kelly's
widely acclaimed Psychology of Personal Constructs asserts that all people
attempt to build conceptual systems that are internally consistent.
Prescott Lecky (1973) argued that the `normally' functioning human
being strives for consistency in all aspects of his life. Mental suffering is
equated with blockage of consistency-striving. It is no accident that the
profession's labels for mental illness include schizoid thinking, bipolarity,
dissociation and multiple personality disorder.
In what follows, I wish to first explore the possibility of an
alternative to the traditional conception of the whole and coherent
person. It is a view that emerges from my attempt in recent years to
develop a relational conception of the person. Such a view replaces
the traditional emphasis on independent, autonomous agents with a
vision of individuals as fundamentally intertwined. A full account of
this vision is contained in my forthcoming volume, Relational Being
(Gergen, in press). This is not the context for a full account on this
vision. However, its concern with what I call multi-being raises
particularly challenging issues relevant to therapeutic practice. It is
to a range of such challenges that final attention will be drawn.
The self as multi-being
Although internal conflict has long been the hallmark of psychodynamic
theory, such theory is also lodged in a view of biologically
based motivation. The nature of conflict is thus viewed as inherent in
the individual, and is limited by one's view of biological drives.
Further, such conflict is viewed as debilitating. In developing a
relational account of human action, all these assumptions are challenged.
In my view, behind the fac¸ade of unity, coherence and
wholeness lies an oppositional world of discord. However, it is a world
of enormous potential, gaining daily in dimension. Consider its
genesis. As we engage in relationships, both significant and superficial,
we are continuously absorbing potentials for action. Every
relationship provides three points of origin for these potentials. First,
others' actions serve as models for what is possible. As we observe
336 Kenneth J. Gergen
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
others in action they fill our consciousness, thus providing a first step
towards incorporating their actions into our own repertoire. This
process, variously called imitation, modelling or identification by
social scientists, is often credited as the fundamental engine of socialization.
It is exemplified in the therapeutic work of Karl Tomm (1998) and
Richard Schwartz (1995). Yet, the traditional view of modelling does not
take us far enough. Within any relationship, we also become somebody.
That is, we come to play a certain part within the relationship itself. With
my mother I come into being as a child; with my children I come into
being as a parent, and so on. Each relationship will bring me into being
as a certain sort of person, and the actions that I acquire will enter the
repository of potentials for future use.
Multi-being is also constituted by a third residue of relationship, the
interactive scenarios that we perform together. When we learn to dance,
we acquire the ability to move our bodies in the prescribed way; we
also watch our partners, and possibly could imitate them as well. Of
equal importance, however, I learn the coordinated activity of the
dance itself, how it goes when I move in this direction, or you move in
that. In the same way, I learn what it is to participate in the give and
take of an argument, the coordinated action of making love, or
scenarios of emotion. Harry Stack Sullivan's (1968) concept of `meyou'
patterns is relevant here. In sum, our participation in relational
process leaves us with potentials to be the other, to be a certain kind of
self, and a form of self/other choreography. From these three sources,
we emerge with enormous possibilities for being.
There are a number of important consequences of this view.
Among the most prominent is obviously its contrast with the traditional
vision of the unified and independent self. The ideal of an
internally integrated, harmonious and coherent mind is replaced by a
view of the person as fundamentally disorderly and inconsistent. The
individualist view of individuals as independent agents is also replaced
by a vision of the person as fully embedded in relationship. It is only
from one's immersion in relationship that the very semblance of
separate identities emerges. The well-ordered and independent mind
is no longer the goal of maturity, but a sign of constricted relations.
For the multi-being, coherence and integration may be valued, but
only within particular relationships. Rather, one may celebrate the
myriad potentials for effective relationships.
It also follows from this vision of multi-being that for anything we
hold as reasonable or good, we may very well harbour the potential
for its opposite. For every way of being we embrace, we are also
Therapeutic challenges of multi-being 337
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
capable of alien activity. From a relational standpoint, every good
liberal also knows very well how to engage in hate talk. Every religious
fundamentalist feels the attractions of sin; every adult can be
childish; every responsible official has the know-how for corruption;
every heterosexual can entertain the possibility of homosexuality.
That we sustain any particular way of life is not because of deep
character or genetic birthmark, but because of the press of ongoing
relationships.
This is also to say that the stable worlds in which we seem to live are
quite fragile. In our daily relationships we encounter only partial
persons, fragments that we mistakenly presume to be whole personalities.
Stability and coherence are generated in our local agreements.
But these agreements are not binding, and disruptions can occur at
any moment. I am not proposing that social life is thus a grand
charade, in which we are all wearing masks to suit the occasion. The
metaphor of the mask is misleading, as it suggests there is a `real self '
to be revealed behind the guise. For the multi-being, there is no inside
vs. outside; there is only continuous participation in relationship. Any
moment of compelling authenticity may give way to a sense of
compromise.
Picturing multi-being
To appreciate this vision of multi-being a visual metaphor may be
useful. In Figure 1 below, various relationships in a person's life are
each represented by an oval. From every relationship there emerge
residues or resources in the form of potential actions (e.g. intelligibilities,
emotional expressions, choreographed movements), any of
which or in combination may be activated in the moment. The person
is essentially constituted, then, by a multiplicity of relationships. Some
relations leave residues that are well practised, while others leave little
but whispers of possibility. The well-practised residues are immediately
to hand, such as the way one speaks to casual friends. Often we
call these habits. They feel, at the moment, to be authentic, a reflection
of the true self. Those less practised may seem ­ for a time ­ to be
sham or play-acting. All potentials may also be viewed as skills, but
others must also treat them as skills. People engaged in a rich range of
relationships, such as the cosmopolite, may carry an enormous range
of potentials; the sheltered or the villager may have fewer potentials.
We are equipped, then, to enter any relationship with myriad
potentials for being.
338 Kenneth J. Gergen
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
As Figure 1 suggests, these relational residues resemble the wing of
a butterfly. This wing enables one to soar in many directions.
However, like the butterfly, two wings are required for flight. In
Figure 2, we add the wing. As we see, in any relationship, there are
Figure 1. The person as relational potentials.
Therapeutic challenges of multi-being 339
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
virtually infinite possibilities for coordination. Failure is also possible.
It is this very condition in which the therapist and client find
themselves together.
Multi-being and reflective eclecticism
The implications of multi-being for therapeutic practice are many and
complex. At this point I wish only to open the door to exploration. In
particular, I wish to call attention to the challenge to the tradition of
univocal or single-school therapy that has long pervaded the profession.
From Freud to the present there is a strong tendency for
practitioners to employ a particular form of therapy (e.g. psychodynamic,
cognitive behavioural, systemic, narrative, brief) regardless
of the circumstances of the client. It is true that many therapists are
more eclectic in their orientation, essentially adapting their approach
to the context at hand. In taking account of multi-being we find
reason to press further, towards what may be viewed as a reflective
eclecticism. The condition of multi-being asks us to reflect on the
Figure 2. The relationship: potentials in flight.
340 Kenneth J. Gergen
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
kinds of coordinated actions required to bring about change in the
character of this clienťs life conditions. If therapist and client are to
take flight in their relationship, there should be deliberation on the
particular combination of feathers best suited for the journey. In what
follows I wish to contrast three conditions.
Progressive isolation
I have become intrigued in recent years with what appears to be an
increasingly pervasive social pattern, that of progressive isolation. By
this I mean an individuaľs circular, self-sustaining trajectory in which
a minor form of deviance and doubt invites others' avoidance, which
in turn triggers further doubt and deviation, with the result of once
again increasing social rejection. Consider: As a result of our multibeing,
virtually all of us dwell at the borders of the unacceptable. Most
of us labour with questions of being too fat or too thin, too short or too
tall, too quick or too slow, too talkative or too silent, too ambitious or
too lazy, too emotional or too rational, and so on. Typically, however,
we find ways of escaping criticism and not stepping on too many toes.
Most importantly we overcome doubt and sustain our sense of being
`OK' through our relation with others. We draw continued nurturance
from the subtle affirmations of daily interchange. Energetic
greetings, the unselfconscious sharing of conversation, congenial
laughter, making plans together and so on all affirm one's membership
inside the walls of the acceptable. For most, these commonplace
scenarios are sufficient; for others, they are not.
In the common hustle-bustle of life we tend to avoid anyone who is
too loud, aggressive, silent, incoherent, critical, slow, unpredictable or
otherwise bothersome. In the individualist tradition, we understand
that we must take care of the self first, that everyone is responsible for
his or her own behaviour, and that the deviant stands in the way of our
progress. Confrontation with deviance can also be unpleasant and
time consuming; avoidance is the best option. Yet, if we happen to be
the offensive one, we are left floating in a sea of uncertainty. `Have I
done something wrong; I was only doing my best; I am only reasonable;
why is that so bad; what is it about me?' Such doubts can first give
way to rejecting others (`I don't care what they think') and then to
avoiding them (`They don't like me, so why hang out with them?'
`They don't appreciate me, so whaťs the point?'). At the same time,
avoidance of contact functions as a further barrier to affirmation. Selfquestioning
intensifies, often leading to uncontrollable rumination.
Therapeutic challenges of multi-being 341
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
To combat the whirl of self-defeating suspicions, one may draw
from the repertoire of multi-being: `I am a person of especially deep
feelings, and they are superficial.' `I am just smarter . . . more creative
. . . more insightful.' Again affirmation is lacking, opening the way to
actions appropriate to the private reality but nowhere else. First there
are actions that confirm the negative visions: cutting one's body, binge
eating, starving oneself. Alcohol and drug addiction are especially
invited, as they both punish the individual while simultaneously
allowing moments of ecstatic forgetting. Most problematic are actions
that punish those responsible for the ejection. One may, for example,
adopt more extreme behaviours, understanding full well that others
will be anxious, frightened or irritated. Disrupting conventions yields
a satisfying revenge. Offensive clothing, slovenly or menacing actions,
muttering to oneself are all options. As others' avoidance is further
increased, there are no limits to one's imagination. And this may
include inclinations to eliminate the arrogant abusers. Here we have
an incubator for extreme actions, such as stalking, paedophilia and
school massacres.
Recent decades have multiplied the potential for progressive
ejection. This is so for two reasons, both related to twentieth-century
technologies. On the one hand, technologies of communication
contribute to the multiplication of oughts. We are bombarded, for
example, with advertisements regarding the proper body shape,
clothing styles, arrangement of the teeth, texture of the hair and so
on. The media inform us of what is `in' in the way of music, books,
restaurants, film and wine. Everywhere we encounter the `top 100',
`the top ten' and `number one'. Rapidly the standards are multiplied
and proliferated, so `every savvy person' knows the rules of acceptability
on the club scene, at the beach, in the classroom and so on.
When oughts are multiplied, so is deviance.
Further, there is a dwindling number of people who can provide
the needed affirmation. Twentieth-century technologies have quickened
the pace of life. With increased capacities to move about the
globe ­ both physically and electronically ­ we find ourselves with
more opportunities, more invitations, more information to process,
more open vistas, and more things that we `must do'. Most of us
find ourselves continuously under pressure ­ so many demands,
so little time. Work on the job is extended into the home; home
life is interrupted by travel requirements, lessons, meetings and
children's activities. Extended time together is reduced to `quality
time', and relationships in depth are replaced by an extended
342 Kenneth J. Gergen
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
and superficial network of acquaintances. Under these conditions
it is difficult to find others to trust with one's secret doubts and
yearnings; it is equally difficult to locate others who have the time to
listen, probe and understand. There is simply no time for deviants
(Gergen, 2001).
In my view, therapists from virtually any school ­ from psychoanalysis
to Buddhist meditation ­ can provide important resources for
enabling clients to escape the Charybdis of isolated self-torment. This
is so because all can affirm the individual as a valid participant in the
social world as opposed to treating him or her with disbelief or
disregard. All may establish a relationship of care, thus contributing
to the special advantage of therapy over other forms of responding to
deviance. At the same time, there are great variations in how much of
the clienťs private wandering will be affirmed and legitimated within
the conversation. In many respects, Carl Rogers' (1995) non-directive
orientation sets a standard for practices that are maximally affirming.
For Rogers, all self-doubts, private fantasies or hidden loathings are
invitations to the therapisťs unconditional regard. As many contemporary
therapists would say, Rogers was fully present to his clients. Yet
Rogers was also committed to his own particular theory of dysfunction
and cure. Essentially he knew the source and cure for clients'
problems before they entered the room. While he listened fully and
affirmingly, his responses were virtually scripted before the client
spoke the first word.
In this respect I am drawn to Harlene Anderson's (1997) proposals
for bracketing the demands of theory in favour of full attention to the
clienťs accounts. It is not simply that the `knowing' therapist may
shape the clienťs account so that it confirms the therapisťs preestablished
theory. Strong theoretical commitments also encourage
selective listening. Especially for the diagnostically oriented therapist,
there is the danger of questions that position the therapist as the judge
of the clienťs sanity. As one of Anderson's clients reported, when his
previous therapist asked him `Is this an ashtray?', he was thrown into a
panic. He needed to talk about his fears, and not to be placed under
evaluation. Anderson proposes, instead, a form of curious and
responsive listening in which one treats the clienťs story as a
trustworthy and legitimate reality. One responds `into' the clienťs
story world, accepting the language, vocabulary and metaphors. The
clienťs reports are not treated as an indication of something `behinď
the words ­ a hidden, unconscious problem, for example, but as one
might treat the words of a close friend. Therapy, in this sense, is a
Therapeutic challenges of multi-being 343
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
collaborative relationship in which responsibility is shared for the
outcome (see Anderson and Gehart, 2007).
Suspending realities
Let us now consider a contrasting condition. For many anguished
people, the affirming voice of a therapist may remove plaguing doubts
and restore a sense of ontological security. With potentials restored,
they may also move more effectively in the extended dances of
relationship. Yet, for many therapeutic clients, it is not a sense of
spinning into a vortex of doubt that is troubling; rather it is an
altogether compelling reality that crushes them in its grip. We are not
dealing here with people who writhe in ambiguity, but with those
locked within debilitating patterns of relationship from which there is
no apparent exit.
How do people become so inflexibly committed to a self-defeating
way of being? Let us place this question in the context of multi-being.
As outlined earlier, normal life equips us with innumerable potentials
for relating. However, in this case we confront people whose patterns
of action are narrowly constrained. Rich potentials remain unrealized.
We often view such persons as problematic personalities: `Jack is
aggressive; Jill is a chronic depressive.' This is to mistake the self of
the moment for the potentials in waiting.
If our potentials for action originate in relationship, so must we
turn to relationship to understand the origins of constriction. There
are two major forces at work in such cases. The first may be located in
ongoing relations in which the person is immersed, and the second in
the past history of relationship. Each requires special therapeutic
attention. With respect to ongoing relations, it is useful to consider
cross-time patterns of collaborative action. There are the common
patterns, such as playing games, gossiping and exchanging gifts.
There are also patterns that are degenerative in their effects on the
participants. Among the most common are arguing, exchanging
criticism and mutual blaming. Participants move slowly towards the
demise of their relationship. To be sure, in all scenarios, certain
potentials are suppressed. Learning how to play one game proficiently
may mean being unskilled in others. However, in the case of
degenerative scenarios, the suppression is more lethal. In generative
scenarios, the door is always open to creative change. The exchange of
affirmation sets a context that is congenial to expanding expression.
However, in degenerative scenarios, the other becomes an alien. One
344 Kenneth J. Gergen
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
does not wish to explore, because the other is rejected. Thus, couples
play games in which they subtly undermine each other, they isolate
each other, or lure each other into mutual rage. Exploration of
alternatives is difficult, and this includes acts of affirmation. As
communication specialists Pearce and Cronen (1982) point out,
many people form patterns of relating they know are harmful to
their relationship. They have bitter fights, engage in mutual blame
and so on. However, they are so well practised in these routines that
they become `just naturaľ. In effect, they become self-sustaining.
Most therapies offer resources for challenging the clienťs life
world. This is so in large part because most therapies are theory
driven. That is, the therapist enters with a set of understandings
shared within his or her professional enclave. These understandings
will seldom duplicate the discourse used by the client. Thus, whenever
the therapist asks a question dictated by his or her theoretical background,
it will typically function to dislodge the presented reality of
the client. The client wants to talk about family problems, but the
humanist therapist asks about his feelings; the client talks about how
everyone is laughing at her, and the cognitive therapist asks her if they
could be laughing at something else; the client talks about problems of
sexual perversion and the psychoanalyst shifts the discussion to
childhood experiences. All such questions move towards dislodging
the taken for granted (Spence, 1984). At the same time, they lure the
client into an alternative world that may or may not be relevant to
existing conditions.
Significantly more flexible in opening up spaces for new flights of
relationship are the discursively oriented practices of therapy. Classic
is the work of the Milan School and the development of circular
questioning (Becvar and Becvar, 1999). Such questioning is often
successful in shifting the family's understanding of `the problem'
from the traditional orientation to `troubled individuals' to troubled
relationships. Within this new space of understanding, many possibilities
may unfold. Distinctly devoted to expanding the range of
possibilities are the practices of the reflecting team. Discussions
provoked by a reflecting team may stimulate a new range of dialogues
for the participants, while simultaneously generating an appreciation
for multiple realities. Narrative therapy is especially sensitive to
locating evidence within the life history of the client that may be
used as a scaffold for building an alternative to the dominating reality
(White, 2007). In effect, the therapist enables the client to locate
forgotten feathers with which to fly.
Therapeutic challenges of multi-being 345
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
Relinquishing private relations
So far we have focused on constricted patterns of action that derive
from ongoing relations in the present, and have touched on several
practices designed to reduce the power of these restrictions. However,
as multi-beings we also carry with us the residues of the past. Most of
these residues are valuable resources, available to enrich the present.
At the same time, some inheritances from past relationships are
strangulating. They become so hardened that we are insensitive to
the changing situation; they are knee-jerk responses that disrupt and
destroy ongoing relations. For example, one may harbour an obdurate
vision of his or her inferiority, failure or undesirability; or one
may be overtaken by an unstinting sense of injustice, jealousy or
insufferable others. Other people find the world all too dangerous,
threatening, or replete with forces beyond their control. Here we are
also dealing with people whose relational partners may find themselves
in despair. Nothing they do seems to invite change. They want
their wafer-thin daughter to eat more, their mate to be less sullen,
their father to be less aggressive and so on. How, then, do we account
for the continuation of such inflexible patterns of being?
Being locked in the past is to remain bound in some form of
relationship. It is to participate in a scenario that privately sustains
itself. The reasons for sustaining such debilitating scenarios may be
many. Often they sustain themselves because they remain unfinished;
a drama has unfolded and one returns continuously in search of a
satisfactory conclusion. For example, one may have been rejected
without a satisfactory reason, unjustly attacked without an opportunity
to retaliate, or sexually abused without any reconciliation. The
story is suspended; its awful drama holds one in its grip. A common
form of the `unfinished story' leaves us with a residue of selfrecrimination.
Here is the `negative voice', a voice that reminds
them all too often that they are unworthy, unlovable or inferior
(Claude-Pierre, 1998). Typically this is the voice of authority (e.g.
parents, teachers, older siblings). In effect, these are people to whom
one could never offer an adequate reply, a refusal or a counter-attack.
The voice remains unanswered and unanswerable.
In the case of these repetitive scenarios, the challenge for the
therapist may be formidable. In the most extreme cases, the whirring
of the private world may reject all who would attempt to enter. The
resentment, hostility or sense of self-righteousness may function as a
fortress. No one can truly understand, no one is sufficiently worthy,
346 Kenneth J. Gergen
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
and those who attempt to be so may seem condescending or manipulative.
How is one to enter the conversation? The Puerto Rican
therapist, Edgardo Morales, tells the story of his early days as a
therapist. He was given a highly difficult case to treat, a young woman
with a history of drugs and antisocial behaviour. Her stormy disposition
had led to her hospitalization. When she was brought to his office,
she sat sullenly before him, her stony face set off with dagger eyes.
Edgardo began with a congenial greeting, and gently outlined how
talking together might be helpful to her. She stared silently. After
more false starts, Edgardo recalled that she had owned a white cat.
Abandoning the therapeutic chatter, he asked about the cat. Although
the stare was never broken, Edgardo did notice a slight movement of
her mouth, as if she were almost ready to speak. With this, Edgardo
proceeded to tell her that he, too, owned a white cat. But, he said, his
cat was very naughty. Edgardo then sat himself behind his desk and
began to tell the girl that at night when he was working at his desk, the
cat became jealous. He wanted attention. Then, role-playing the cat,
Edgardo climbed on top of the desk, and with a loud `Meow', leaped
with all fours on to the desk top. The patient suddenly screamed out,
`You are crazy!' Edgardo responded, `Yes, but I get paid for it.' The
girl burst into laughter, and with that, an engaging and productive
conversation began.
A less dramatic, but highly innovative means of disrupting
these self-sustaining scenarios was developed by New York therapist
Peggy Penn (2007). If the offending other cannot be addressed
in person, she asked, are there not other ways of `finishing old
business'? Specifically, Penn made extensive use of letter writing
to generate dialogue with the unavailable participant in the debilitating
relationship. Consider a woman who has suffered abuse from a
now-deceased stepfather. She cannot rid herself of the humiliating
experience; normal sexual relations are now beyond her grasp. Penn
might have her compose a letter to her stepfather. There she could
quietly and articulately spell out the full range of her feelings,
her anger, anguish, self-blame, and possibly even her love. With the
private conversation now out in the open, Penn can be brought more
fully into the conversation. The private scenario is now open to
another conversational partner. However, the process does not necessarily
terminate at this point. Rather, Penn might then invite the
woman to compose a letter in which she takes the part of the
stepfather. What can she imagine her stepfather saying to her? How
would he explain his actions; what would he be feeling? Now the
Therapeutic challenges of multi-being 347
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
scenario approaches conclusion and, with Penn as a collaborator, its
grip is released
In my view, Buddhist practices now represent an enormously
important addition to the therapisťs resources. Speaking directly to
the challenge of private scenarios is a Buddhist practice called
Shikanho (Koshikawa et al., 2006). In one variation, clients are asked
to think of the unpleasant occurrence that unsettles them, and to
summon forth the feelings that it evoked. Once the image is in focus,
they are asked to envision the situation without making any evaluations
or judgements. They are to allow the scenario to play itself out
without judging, for example, that it was humiliating or disastrous.
After suspending judgement of the scenario, the clients are challenged
with a new task: imagine looking at the situation from various
angles of vision. How would it appear from above or below, from near
or far? With the help of the therapist, clients move through these
angles of vision every two seconds. After thirty seconds, however, they
are allowed pause for thirty seconds to take a deep breath before
continuing. Through this form of concentration, the unpleasant
occurrence ceases to be commanding. One may approach the memory
as `something that happeneď, but with its significance now
optional. It is neither good nor bad in itself; vantage point is every-
thing.
Expanding horizons
As we find, when viewed in terms of multi-being, differing client
histories may present the therapist with particular challenges in terms
of productive collaboration. The client who is plagued by a private
dialogue of doubt may require an affirming partner; the client who is
locked within a debilitating process of relationship may require
reconstructive conversations; and one who is bound within relational
process long past may challenge the therapist to locate means of
entering the circle and rewriting history. I have focused on these three
conditions not as an attempt to be inclusive, but to open up discussion
on the variations in the modes of therapeutic relationship that may be
required for productive interchange.
It would be useful to expand the range of such situations and to
extend discussion of reflective eclecticism. For example, because of
the security derived from sustaining a well-practised way of being, an
individual may become increasingly `de-skilleď. One may hone
practices such as anger or argumentation over time, becoming
348 Kenneth J. Gergen
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
increasingly proficient in their use. However, as reliance is continuously
placed on these forms of being, there may be a loss in flexibility.
One may simply lack the skill to respond to frustration other than with
anger, or to disagreement other than with attack. Under these
conditions the therapeutic relationship may best become one of
student to a teacher of skills. Here the usual dance of question and
answer may have to be abandoned in favour of a form of relationship
in which the client metaphorically learns how to fly.
Or, in the case of couples, there is the frequent occurrence of one
participant living out a way of being that is unacceptable to the
relational reality they have built together. Love affairs, sexual deviance
and crime are among the most common candidates. The
challenge here is to locate means of crossing the borders of meaning
in such a way that the binding reality is not destroyed. The skills of a
mediator may be demanded of the therapist. For many couples, there
is also the ironic threat of long-standing harmony. As potentials are
suppressed and eroded over time, the vitality of the relationship may
expire. Here the therapist may become a guide into the imaginary. As
multi-beings, clients and therapists have before them an enormous
range of possible trajectories. As suggested here, reflection on their
form and function may be highly productive.
References
Anderson, H. (1997) Conversation, Language and Possibilities. New York: Basic
Books.
Anderson, H. and Gehart, D. (eds) (2007) Collaborative Therapy: Relationships and
Conversations that Make a Difference. London: Routledge.
Becvar, R. J. and Becvar, D. S. (1999) Systems Theory and Family Therapy: A Primer
(2nd edn). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Claude-Pierre, J. (1998) The Secret Language of Eating Disorders. New York:
Vintage.
Cronen, V. and Pearce, W. B. (1982) The coordinated management of meaning: a
theory of communication. In F. E. X. Dance (ed.), Human Communication
Theory. New York: Harper & Row.
Gergen, K. J. (2001) The Saturated Self (2nd edn). New York: Perseus.
Gergen, K. J. (in press) Relational Being, Beyond the Individual and Community. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
Koshikawa, F., Kuboki, A. and Ishii, Y. (2006) Shikanho: a Zen-based cognitivebehavioral
approach. In M. Kwee, K. J. Gergen and F. Koshikawa, Horizons in
Buddhist Psychology. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute Press.
Lecky, P. (1973) Self-consistency: A Theory of Personality. New York: Island Press.
Therapeutic challenges of multi-being 349
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
Penn, P. (2007) Listening voices. In H. Anderson and D. Gehart (eds), Collaborative
Therapy: Relationships and Conversations That Make a Difference. New York:
Routledge.
Rogers, C. (1995) On Becoming a Person: A Therapisťs View of Psychotherapy. London:
Constable & Robinson.
Schwartz, R. (1995) Internalized Family Systems Therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Spence, D. (1984) Narrative Truth and Historical Truth: Meaning and Interpertation in
Psychoanalysis. New York: W.W Norton.
Sullivan, H. S. (1968) The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Tomm, K. (1998) Honoring our internalized others and the ethics of caring: a
conversation with Karl Tomm. In M. Hoyt (ed.), Handbook of Constructive
Therapies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Toulmin, S. (2001) Return to Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, M. (2007) Maps of Narrative Practice. New York: Norton.
350 Kenneth J. Gergen
r 2008 The Author. Journal compilation r 2008 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice