| Abstrakt: |
This discussion departs from the traditional “interview” in structure and content. The field, like much of society at large, has become fragmented and isolated. Therefore, this discussion was structured in such a way that encouraged a generative conversation in which we could come together and talk about our work differently. This discussion is not an explicit comparative inquiry into the methods of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy and Narrative Therapy. Those readers interested in differences or similarities between an “exception” and a “unique outcome” may risk disappointment. The purpose of the interview was to engage in a critical reflection that would not be methodology focused, but, instead provide the reader with a glimpse of the people themselves and what it is they are trying to accomplish through their work. The purpose was also to encourage discussion between all of us, instead of a linear question-and-answer process. The structure of the discussion was also influenced by a frutuitous event that occurred the night before it was scheduled to happen, when I (Jim) ran into Michael on the streets of Washington, D.C., along with his colleagues Lisa Berndt and Sharon Gollan. Michael invited me to have dinner with them and during the course of dinner I was intrigued with Lisa and Sharon for many reasons. Lisa expressed sensitivity for race and culture that could only belong to a seasoned veteran, and she had a great sense of humour. Sharon, an aboriginal woman who had presented a workshop that day with Michael, spoke with strong conviction through powerful metaphors that were quite moving. Suddenly, it occurred to me that as a white North American male (albeit, well intended) I was going to be doomed to certain blind spots in the discussion. I was convinced that Lisa and Sharon would enrich and round out the discussion with Insoo and Michael tremendously. They agreed to join as coach/participants.Why is a discussion of this sort with Insoo Kim Berg and Michael White important now? Much of the work presently being practiced in our field is derived from problem-solving theory and, thus, the practitioner operates close to the methodology of the mode. This makes it difficult for practitioners to step back and look at themselves in their work. This is not only an issue of knowledge and technique, but an issue of power. By forcing and framing their work into a particular order through technique and method, they reduce their work to a set of norms and procedures which describe how the work is supposed to be done. This excludes many other possibilities for our work with each other and with the people who come to us for help. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the meta-perspective of critical theory, which allows us to step back and critically evaluate ourselves. There are currently many questions in the field about our work and how we do our work that need to be addressed. We hope this discussion can serve as a beginning lor many conversations that could occur between many people about how we do our work and how we address some of these questions. For example:•Is our field fragmented and are the various schools of thought isolated from each other?•What is the relationship between Postmodemism and the field of family therapy?•Do we need to clarify and make explicit our collective principles and ethics?•Do we need to locus more on change beyond the therapy room?This discussion with Insoo Kim Berg and Michael White attempts to breathe life into the process and revisits their passion and commitment to their craft. It attempts to bring them to the foreground and emphasize their wisdom and sense of purpose. |
