Pierre - Pierre is a gay man who lives with his partner, Mark. He is just recently coming off an extended period of time in which he was unemployed and mostly confined to his home by his own choice. When Pierre was a child, he was bullied at school. Brought up Catholic, he has since left the church due to its position on homosexuality. A psychologist diagnosed Pierre with Agoraphobia and named some of his bouts with anxiety as “ panic attacks”. Earlier in his life he was also diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder. Recently, Pierre took on a job as a bicycle courier, and has been struggling to keep up with the workload. His boss has expressed sympathy, but has indicated that she will need to lay him off if he is not able to increase productivity. She recommended that he see a counselor. (see also Pierre monologue in Chapter One of video resources)

David and James - James is a 26-year-old man who is having difficulties with his girlfriend, "Marla". Marla wants James to “stand up” more for her when her siblings are hard on her—teasing her around the dinner table. From his experience as a male, James understands "standing up” as being aggressive, fighting. He prefers not to do this. The dilemma leads James to a conclusion, a truth claim as it were: he must be a "woos”.

David and Christy – Christy is the 26-year-old mother of a 2-year-old daughter, Cristelle. She returned to her work as an employee assistance plan counselor 4 months ago after being off on a maternity leave. One month after returning to work she separated from her husband John. She has recently moved in with her parents, who she says are caring grandparents but have many opinions about parenting that sometimes cause stresses. Christy says she is not feeling much empathy for clients at work and not getting along with workmates.

David and Noah - Noah is a 30-year-old graduate student, married to Joanne with a 3-year-old daughter, Samantha. His life is currently very hectic and he has been struggling with the pace of things. He has been concerned about his mood lately, saying he feels “down” much of the time. In one session, he reports distress about an incident that happened a few days ago. He was in a small town and met another young man, who, upon learning that Noah was Jewish, asked “How come you’re not in the ovens?”

David and Tina – Tina is a 16-year-old student who in recent months has been neglecting her studies and partying heavily with a circle of friends. Recently she had a frightening experience when her friend Nicole was slipped a date rape drug at a rave and ended up in hospital.

David and Lynn – Lynn is a 59-year-old woman who decided to seek counselling to work through a longstanding concern about what she describes as a lack of courage in relation to various challenges, especially physical challenges. Lynn describes an incident snow-shoeing with friends when she reached an impasse: they wanted to proceed over a dangerous icy slope and she became overwhelmed with anxiety and needed help getting down from the mountain. She jokingly refers to a “cowardly gene” to capture the sense that the anxiety that overwhelms her in these situations is an expression of her fundamental nature. At the same time she is curious to challenge this notion and wants to change the way she responds in similar situations.

In this monologue last featured in Chapter 4, Pierre provides a capsule summary of some of the challenges he has faced over the past few years. His account is rife with possibility for deconstructive conversations. See if you can identify certain stories or discourses that have contributed to some of his identity conclusions. Where do these come from—what institutional sources in society? What are some of the primary normative messages about “how people should be” that are attached to these messages? What might these messages lead Pierre to conclude about himself?

Analysis

While Pierre makes efforts to get his life back on track, he does so in the face of a number of dominant stories or discourses from various social sources that are not necessarily supportive of him. From the Catholic church, he was told that his homosexuality was sinful. From Psychology, he has come to understand himself as having more than one mental disorder. Form the school system, he has developed a view of himself as academically impaired. More generally he is also under the influence of discourses about productivity which suggest he is a “loser” for depending on his partner and not contributing to the workforce. All of these “claims’ on his identity impair Pierre in moving forward, but they also offer opening to deconstructive conversations that can help him trace the beliefs to their cultural sources, thereby robbing them of some of their “truth value” and creating space for him to make sense of himself and his circumstances differently.

James is caught in a dilemma that can be understood in terms of certain gender prescriptions he is subject to. His girlfriend wants him to “stand up” more for her, and the only way he can understand this phrase is in terms of fighting or violence, which don't fit with his values. David helps James to deconstruct the ideas that are constraining his choices by going with him on a tour of his upbringing, shedding light on male discourses about being “tough” and a “real man”. What does James say that shows his harsh self-critique comes from cultural ideas about “how men should be”? How does David help James to see these are ideas, not Truth? What does David ask that helps James figure out where these beliefs came from? How does David help James not only identify but also question the ideas behind the claim and evaluate their impact? How does David avoid this being turned into a blame-the-parents game? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

It has been said the “we are the fish; discourses are the water”. In other words, many if not most of the entrenched beliefs we hold and live by are not necessarily visible to us—they are background to our day to day lives. This becomes evident when we travel to other cultures and confront own beliefs and values as they bump into those of the local traditions. Because of this, it can be challenging to help people step back from beliefs that are problematic in their lives, to see them as cultural constructions rather than fundamental truths. That is what David is doing here. His slow-moving attention to the minutiae of James’ experience is deliberate—he doesn’t want to get ahead of James and would prefer that James comes to new understandings by reflecting with David’s support. The most useful discovery that emerges may be that James’ mother has been highly influential with his father, and clearly without adopting a pugilistic manner. This provides James with an alternate model for a way of “standing up” that does not involve violence, opening space for him to begin to consider alternatives in his own life.

In this exchange, David and Tina continue to make meaning of recent developments. To get the process started, David asks a stylized question. Pay attention to both his verbal and nonverbal to see how he attempts to draw Tina into this unusual question. Does she get onto it immediately, or does she need some additional help? What key words emerge as Tina reflects on the question? How does David link what she shares here with an earlier exchange related to some personal qualities of Tina's that have been emerging in the wake of recent developments? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

It can be rewarding to watch a person take steps that are congruent with their values and help them to move towards their preferred outcomes. Supporting them in making meaning of these steps can help to consolidate these developments. In this excerpt, Tina does not immediately catch the drift of David’s stylized question, despite his methodical wording of it. Gradually the two of them zero in on some key ideas, starting with the idea that there are now “options” for the lifestyle and career that Tina could conceivably choose. As they consolidate this notion, David links it with the quality of “perseverance” that he and Tina earlier identified in her.

In this exchange first introduced as The evolution of meaning in Chapter Two, and re-visited as Orienting to responses in Chapter Eight, a story migrates significantly over the course of a few minutes. What is the dominant, foreground meaning of the event for Noah at the outset? What conclusions about himself does he draw from the version of the event he’s currently recruited into? What alternate meaning of what happened does David invite to the foreground? What questions does David ask to mine Noah’s experience for other events that help to substantiate this alternate account? How does David support Noah in “seeing things differently” by looking at this and related events through the eyes of another? What conclusions about Noah are associated with this alternate view? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

We make sense of the events of our lives by imparting meaning to them. It is these meanings that constitute our lived realities. At the opening of this conversation, Noah’s lived reality features him as passive in the face of a transgression, silent on the topic of racism. As David “double listens” to Noah’s story, understanding his actions as expressions of values not fully articulated, as opposed to evidence of passive docility, some very different meanings emerge about the events described. In addition, the story about Noah as a person transforms in some dramatic ways. This migration of stories is what counselling and psychotherapy are all about. Because of the deep entrenchment of many dominant interpretations of our lives, it is not typical for a single instance of making new meanings to forever alter a person’s experience. Noah here has a brief epiphany, but further reflection and discussion will be needed to consolidate this changed understanding. As Noah finds opportunities to act in accordance with his commitment to opposing racism (and be witnessed in doing so), this version of himself will gain further traction. 

In this short exchange, David is curious to make further meaning with Tina of a development she has indicated as positive for her—she stayed home, got some school work done, and got a good grade for it. What does he ask in order to invite Tina to characterize this development? How does he respond when Tina invites him to take over the job of naming it? How does he respond when Tina downplays the accomplishment and what comes out of that response? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

Notice that David prepares Tina to answer this question by recapping the context of her decision to stay home and get some work done. When Tina falters while trying to come up with a word, David refrains from supplying one so that the language comes from her. Notice also that once she characterizes this preferred development, she downplays it. Rather than jump in to contradict her, David goes with her comment, and invites her to say more. The result is that she reverts to acknowledging her accomplishment.

This exchange follows on the heels of Characterizing a preferred development, also in this chapter. David and Tina earlier identified a quality of Tina’s, “perseverance”, that she has drawn on in her current situation. Watch how David uses this as leverage to explore other possible instances of perseverance in Tina’s life. How does he support Tina in reflecting on this? In identifying dance classes when she was younger, she also makes reference to her older sister Jen, who she admires. What does David say to help Tina evaluate the plausibility of this being a second example of her exercising perseverance? What does he ask to help Tina evaluate the payoff, and the values undergirding these actions? How does he help Tina to link this example from the distant past to to recent developments in her life? How does he give permission to Tina to evaluate the unfolding story on her own terms? In what way does Tina modify the language David uses to describe these developments? What aspects of the counselor’s practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

A single preferred development is typically the filament of a longer strand, if explored further. That’s what happens here. David earlier helped Tina to characterize her actions, which they jointly name as “perseverance”. Now they search for additional examples of this quality in Tina’s history. Tina identifies her experience in dance class as a younger person, where she persisted despite some pain and discomfort. David asks about what made it important enough for her to do this, and what the rewards were for her in doing it. As the story unfolds, Tina’s mom and her sister Jen emerges as witnesses to these qualities in Tina. David helps Tina to make a link between these earlier events in her life and the recent development of staying home when her friends tried to get her to a rave. As the conversation continues, a view emerges of Tina applying herself—with persistence—to challenge herself and to accomplish something of value to herself. This emerging view will fortify Tina as she continues to take steps towards a preferred outcome not yet fully articulated, but one which represents a departure from the high risk behavior that prompted the recent crisis in her life.

In this exchange featured in Chapter Six as Coordinating meaning, Lynn lays out a mostly problem-saturated account of a herself as an introduction to why she has decided to seek counselling. What is the dominant message about herself that Lynn presents? What “evidence” for this account of herself does she lay forth? What alternate views of Lynn can you entertain, and what is it in her story that points to these? What aspects of the counselor’s practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

It is common for people to feel they are the problem when they are struggling with difficulties. It is also common for the feeling of being overwhelmed by challenges to act as blinders that make it difficult to notice events that stand outside of the problem—this is what is meant by being immersed in a “problem saturated story”. Here, Lynn presents her story about what happened on the weekend as an account of her identity as well. She sees the event as one further conformation of a negative view of herself. While it is possible to hear her story differently, this is difficult for Lynn at this time, and part of the task in working with her will be to invite her to make different meaning of the situation in order to create new possibilities for thought, emotion, and action.

In this exchange, David has just learned that despite being overcome by fear recently while snowshoeing, Lynn had successfully negotiated her fear the day previous to that. This, for Lynn, is a preferred development because she has clearly indicated she would like to deal differently with the fear and anxiety when they come up. What does David do here to ensure Lynn has a platform to clearly describe this development? What aspects of the counselor’s practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

There are always gaps in problem-saturated stories. And yet they are frequently not noticed by people struggling with challenges because of the influence of a dominant story highlighting what is going “wrong”. Sometimes the gaps are visible to counselors who are “double listening” for events that stand outside the problem story. In that case, the counselor can immediately plunge into learning more about this “gap” in the problem story. Other times, it might be necessary to actively inquire about preferred developments in the recent or distant past. In this case, (as seen originally in Chapter Ten), David asked about an exception. This excerpt features Lynn describing one—a single event that becomes the focus of some highly useful explorations by David and Lynn.

This excerpt follows on Identifying a preferred development in this chapter.

Lynn has described the problem she wants to work on and has given an example of a preferred development. At this point David seeks to “thicken” the account of this. What questions stand out for you? See if you can identify key questions used in this methodical inquiry into helpful actions, self-talk and values that serves to expand the description of this development. What did Lynn do to prepare for accomplishing this preferred development? What are some of the positive effects of Lynn’s actions that are highlighted in order to consolidate this preferred development? Which aspects of the event and Lynn’s experience not previously named come to light? What aspects of the counselor’s practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

A preferred development is the thread of an alternate story. Showering these events with curiousity leads to “thickening” them—expanding the meaning of the event and linking it to other key events—self-talk used, emotions felt, actions initiated, images generated, and so on. The practice of joining clients in doing this involves slowing things down, examining their actions frame by frame, always oriented with the expectation of finding out more about values, knowledge and skills they have brought to bear on their circumstances. David is aware that his questions are unusual in that we are not accustomed to sifting through events with this degree of detail; and so he points this out and checks with Lynn to confirm she is on board with the process. This is highly de-centered practice in the sense that the counselor’s role here is to draw forward an account Lynn’s initiative rather than to provide tips or guidance. The result is that Lynn discovers resources she already has in hand, and comes to understand the preferred development not as a random event but as something accomplished by her through systematic preparation.

At this point, David and Lynn have a clear example of an exception to the problem of the crippling fear she describes coming up in the face of physical challenges. The original exception was a cross country ski outing. David invites Lynn to make meaning of it by characterizing it as part of a “project”. How does David introduce this notion? What name does Lynn ascribe to the project? What does David do to identify a second event that fits this project title? What is the second event that Lynn presents? To what degree does she initially see this second event as an exception to the problem she introduced of being crippled by fear? How do David and Lynn’s views of this additional exception evolve as they continue to examine it? What aspects of the counselor’s practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

Asking to characterize a development as a “project” is similar to inviting a client to name a book chapter as seen with David and Tina in Naming a preferred development as a book chapter, also in this chapter. It moves the conversation from an event (skiing outing) to the meaning made about the event. By characterizing it as a project, the question also implies that it was not a random “one-off” but part of a larger agenda that Lynn has undertaken. The project title also provides leverage for seeking out similar events. Here that title is “Reaching to be the best that I can”. It brings to mind a childhood memory for Lynn of waterskiing. As David and Lynn explore this other event which stands in contradiction to her problem-saturated story, they develop a more refined picture of what she does when she does not allow fear to, as she said, “extricate” herself from the situation. Notice this does not involve vanquishing fear but rather proceeding in the face of it.

In this exchange, Lynn reflects on whether going forward despite her fear (as she’s done on some other occasions) was a possibility when she was snow-shoeing. However, she confronts her doubts about that. She wonders whether in this case she reached “the limits of my ability”. David has a choice here: he could encourage her to remember that she has successfully challenged that fear in the past, or he could entertain with Lynn the possibility that not all of these situations are the same. What does he do? What possible options for Lynn do the two of them identify that are neither 1. becoming paralyzed by fear and “extricating herself” or 2. “extending herself past the fear”. What does Lynn says at this point that shows she has been pulled back into a distinction of being either courageous or a coward? How does David help her to entertain a third position? Where do the two of them end up in relation to the options open to Lynn when she is faced with a significant physical challenge? What aspects of the counselor’s practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

It is convenient for shorthand’s sake to refer to “the presenting problem” as though it is a monolithic and static entity. But as therapeutic conversations unfold, both client and counselor come to see and understand problems differently. The picture often becomes more complex, and as a result, the shared objectives of the counseling evolve as well. Earlier, David and Lynn’s view of her experience became more complex as they came to realize it is not a simple distinction between 1. Being cowardly and 2. Being courageous. Courage happens in the presence of fear. Here, Lynn’s story become more complex again as a distinction emerges between 1. Extending herself despite her fear, and 2. Recognising the limits of her abilities. It appears that without David holding the possibility of honouring her fear, Lynn might default to concluding that any time she turned away from a challenge it would be proof of her cowardice. As David keeps an alternative possibility alive, Lynn reflects on how she could learn to discern the limits of her ability, so she can choose either to extend herself or to make a dignified and self-honouring choice to not go forward. Note the definition of the problem has changed along with these shifts, from 1. Being cowardly in the face of physical challenges, to something more like 2. Becoming overwhelmed and failing to honour her own judgment of her limits in challenging physical circumstances.