Marc and Peter – Peter is a 35-year-old man who is currently unemployed. His partner is very busy with her career and Peter feels she barely notices that he is struggling. Normally very active physically, Peter has given up on exercising. He is saying no to social invitations and has also stopped engaging in one of his favorite hobbies, watching films. He describes a sort of numbness: he says he “doesn't think” about any of these things. While he can identify a degree of “anxiety”, he has difficulty articulating his emotional experience.

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?”

Marc begins here by asking about the “lack of purpose and sadness” that Peter had referred to. When Peter introduces the word “heaviness”, Marc picks it up and occasionally refers to it in externalizing language as he seeks to get a picture of the problem in general. What emerges as some of the primary effects of the heaviness in Peter’s life? How does the language for the problem evolve further in this brief exchange? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

When people are struggling with challenges, they often feel that they are the problem. This is a discouraging place to be, and an unproductive starting point for a conversation intent on tapping into agency. Externalizing is a linguistic practice that separates persons and problems. By “opening space” in this manner, Marc helps Peter to take a step back from the problem and evaluate the way it is playing out in his life. At this stage in their exchange, the focus of Marc’s inquiry is on the impact of the problem on Peter. Peter seems well entrenched in a mood that makes it difficult for him to evaluate his situation. Towards the close of this brie exchange, the word “wall” emerges in their dialogue as they continue to describe Peter’s experience.

As David explores Christie’s options with her she indicates that moving back in with John is not on the table. David is curious to learn more about John’s interactions with Christie because regardless of whether they reconcile, he may continue to be involved in their lives as their daughter Cristelle’s father. In this sense, David is assessing risk. What is it about the way he does this that merits the title “Co-assessing”? How does David draw out a detailed account of both Christie’s observations, but also her reflections on safety and the possible merits of reunification with John? What questions help to move from vague generalizations to concrete examples? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

Like most therapeutic exchanges, conversations focused on evaluating risk can accomplish more than one thing simultaneously. Here David is learning more about the risk of violence based on past history, but also helping Christie to consolidate her commitment to keeping her daughter safe. Rather than taking Christie’s pronouncements at face value, David invites her to in effect justify them further by naming the values underlying her decisions. In situations where a lack of clarity regarding those fundamental values could lead to a drift towards a dangerous situation, this helps to ensure that Christie keeps her safety and her child’s safety at the forefront. This is accomplished without needing to admonish Christie in a manner that could underestimate her own judgment.

Here Marc opens with a recap that helps to orient Peter to the discussion to come. He ends by confirming his understanding with Peter before seeking a thicker description of the problem. What questions do you notice that help to paint a vivid picture of what the problem looks like in Peter’s life? What does Marc do to ensure that Peter is not suicidal? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

In this exchange, Marc checks in on Peter’s ideation to ensure he is not contemplating suicide. Notice he does not dance around the topic but names it explicitly. He is transparent in seeking permission to ask about Peter’s possible suicidality. Suicide does not appear as a current risk, so while Marc will keep it in mind, he does not pursue the topic further at this time.

In this exchange also featured in chapter 4 as Relating to values, skills and abilities, and agency, David is in effect, assessing for competence. He has heard Christie describe exchanges with her estranged husband John, and now seeks to enlarge the account of these, with a focus not on problems, but on competencies that she has been able to display in difficult circumstances. Notice this exchange features not a language of “effects” but instead one of responses—while on first view one might conclude Christie “doesn’t do anything” in response to John’s abusive behavior, a closer inspection reveals that she actively responds in a highly constructive manner. David asks highly specific questions to get a picture of the choices Christie made in the face of challenges. What were the challenges? What were the choices? What questions does David use to expand the description of Christie’s active responses and the abilities she displayed? How does he get at her motivation (what made it important enough for her to do it)? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

Not “fighting back” or retaliating when someone is aggressive can sometimes be seen as a shortcoming—a failure to “stand up for oneself” that must be remedied with “assertiveness training”. David does not assume Christie’s actions are the expression of deficit; instead he listens with the assumption that when people are transgressed, they engage in acts of resistance. He therefore listen for competence and witnesses the story of someone who managed to keep herself and her child safe in a dangerous situation. David’s questions seek to unpack this development in all its richness, to determine, among other things: 1. What steps Christie took in responding to John; 2. What skills and abilities were needed to achieve this; 3. What knowledge informed her actions; 4. What values she was busy standing for. Was the incident with John “really” about deficit or competence? The question fails to recognise the interpretive quality of experience. The meaning of the event is not merely “discovered”; it is co-constructed by both David and Christie through their conversation about it. Their exchange contributes to consolidating skills and abilities Christie has never previously named, fortifying her for similar encounters in the future.

This video is paired with the Orienting to responses video to illustrate the outgrowth of two distinct ways of orienting to Noah’s account. In this exchange, Noah has just shared the story of an ugly incident described in the scenario background summaries for the videos. As David listens to Noah’s story, what does David zero in on as “the problem”? Would you say he is more oriented to Noah’s active responses to events, or his shortcomings in dealing with them? What deficit of Noah’s is constructed in this conversation based on this way of orienting to his story? What remedial “treatment” is recommended to address the purported deficit? How do fortified for encountering similar events do you imagine Noah is feeling at the completion of this exchange?

Analysis

There is a difference between 1. Expressing empathy and compassion to someone recounting transgressions against them, and 2. Constructing the event as passive victimhood. Here the counsellor receives Noah’s story empathetically, before launching an inquiry into how Noah purportedly failed to respond appropriately in the situation. The assumption is that he could have “done something” but instead was a passive victim. There is not an understanding of his response as a choice (conscious or not) informed by values, and expression of nonviolence, a silent protest. The outcome of the exchange is that Noah comes to learn that he needs be “more assertive”, and that assertiveness is a commodity he can fill up on with the help of his counsellor. The meaning of the incident that emerges from this exchange is that it is evidence of a deficit in Noah’s repertoire.

This video is paired with the Orienting to victimhood video to illustrate the outgrowth of two distinct ways of orienting to Noah’s account. In this exchange, Noah has just identified the event as an act of racism—not a conclusion that immediately came to his mind but one which arose from some scaffolded inquiry from David. What aspects of what happened does David seem particularly interested in this time around? What problem becomes the focus of the conversation between Noah and David, and where is that problem located? What attributes of Noah’s not initially identified by him come to light as a consequence of this way of orienting? How fortified for encountering similar events do you imagine Noah is feeling at the completion of this exchange? What aspects of this practice might you have done similarly/differently?

Analysis

In this instance, the counsellor is operating on the assumption that in the face of oppression, violence, and abuse, people resist in some way that is congruent with the context in which it occurs. This resistance is an active response, informed by what is important to the person on the receiving end, and it not necessarily obvious or covert. David approaches his conversation with Noah supported by these assumptions. As a result, he becomes curious about what Noah “did” in the wake of the racist comment. The question initially puzzles him but David is persistent. What emerges is an account of how Noah “shut out” the man who made the remark, and this leads to a further exploration of related protests against racism that Noah has made. The important conclusion between the two orientations demonstrated in connection with this racist incident is not about which is “true”, but rather what are the repercussions of each inquiry? This response-based inquiry has empowers Noah by acknowledging his history of speaking out against racism. This will not only counteract a misplaced sense of shame from the incident, but will also support him in any similar future encounters.