CHAPTER 7

*
Offering Reflections
SOME THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL
CONSIDERATIONS

.. 1am D. Lax
W:1·Jl·

HAVING PARTICIPATED IN many different types of reflecting process

conversations, 1 have been delighted by the creativity that therapiscs and
clie:nts show in developing formats and in offering perceptive, innovative,
and useful reflections. These conversations have occurred in a variety of .,
contexts and settings with a broad range of clinical issues, including
outpatientand inpatient therapy, home-based work,supervision, research,
consultation, training groups, hospitals, organizations, presentatíons, and
teaching (e f. Davidson & Lussardí, 1991; Gottlieb & Gottlieb, 1990;
Griffith & Griffith, 1992; Lax, 1989; Lussardi & Miller, 1990; Miller &
Lax, 19B8; Prest, Darden, & Keller, 1990) . The utility of che reflecting
approach has been found to be overwhelmingly positive,as demonstrated
~j by responses from both clíents and therapists participating in reilecting
• process conversations (e f. Katz, 1991; Se lis, Smith, Coe, Yoshioka, &
Robbin:;, 1994) .
However, I have also noted, consistent with che reports of other
colleagues (e.g., Madígan, 1991), that in sorne instances the reflections
themselvés have not been useful. 1 Clients felt that reflections were too
confusing, did not address che ir issues precise! y, did not give che m enough
dírection, were too long, or left them feeling misunderstood by che

As Se lis et al. (1994) point out. there is sometimes ~ disagreemem berween therapim and cl ients as
1

to the mefu lness of the reOecting process. Clients are more likely to rate the reflections as more
~• s eful rh~n therapim do. ·

- 145-
 146 - THE REFLECTING TEAM -
reflecting rherapists. 2 Reflections sometimes had a "watered-down" fe el
or pretendas pece wich reflectors repeatedly using words su eh as "struck,"
"taken by," "impressed wich," and "touched" and then followed by an
overiy positive (and Pollyanna-like) remark. In addition, as Madigan has
described, therapists found that these comments frequently did noc seem
co be as rich as the later conversations they had among themselves.
Severa! general and specific questions began to emerge for me in
lighc of chese experiences. What happens when clients or cherapists fe el
thac chis process is not useful? How is it that they feel misunderscood anq:.
might chis misunderstanding be useful at times? How many ideas are too
many? Is ic okay for cherapiscs co disagree or even question one anocher?
When should new ideas be delivered or should the therapist stick only
co what was raised by che clients in che incerview? Whac components
make up "successful" refleccions?
This chapter addresses sorne of these quescions, brings cogether
exiscing material on so me of che "rules" and guidelines for engaging in
reflecting conversations, and provides additional direccions for cherapiscs
on both che form and content of reflections. The guidelines presented
are drawn from a number of sources, principally che work of Andersen
(1987 , 1991 ), Madigan (1991), and White (1994). Consiscenc with thrse
auchors, 1 specifically emphasize how refleccions mighc be shifted more
to che leve) oí a ''conversation" paraiieling che inrerview itself.3 I will noc
accempc to codity reflections but merely to look at cheir general charac-
teristics . I will provide a brief theoretical backdrop for che refleccing
process by drawing on some recent developments in poscmodern think-
ing, including ideas from che areas ofhermeneucics, social construction-
ism, and clinical psychology. What follows is intended to serve as a guide
ot1ly, not as ~ prescription: to do otherwise would violare che underlying
perspeccive of the refleccing process.
INITIAL GUIDELINES AND QUESTIONS
As 1 revie wed existing work, 1 realized thac Andersen (1991) anticipaced
sorne of chese quesrions. H is guidelines are directed to both che process
2
Thro~1ghouc ch is ch:tpter, whenever I refer coa reflector or reflecting cherapisc,l will be considering
therapms ofTenng rellecnons rn 3 vane¡y of conrexcs. These include, for ex~mple, a cher;¡pisc working
alone, a cocheropy team in a room wirh cliencs, anda te 3m of therapists observing from behind 3
one-w3y mirror.
3 incident•; of therapiscs merely offering their own individual ideas to
1 will refer ro th1 s p.1 n of che 111terview 3S ;¡ retlecring convermion, referring to boch che proc.ess
of ofrer1ng rdleco ons dllring tlle lnterview ;¡nd how chis specif1c convers:~tion t3kes place, reg 3rdless
of how m3ny t11nes reilecrions rn;¡y be ofTered in an inrerview or wirh whom .
- O.fferi11g ReflectiorTS - 147
and che content of reflections, and he offers che following questioning
and advice to cherapists.
When che reflections are delivered, one might think of this, "Should they
be given in a mqnologue's form or as part of an exchanging dialogue?
Should one stick strictly to just one certain idea or offer many ideas? Is the
tal k of the standstill system more intellectual and 'cool' ora bit more artistic
or 'flowery'?" That might lead the reflections to be more straight forward
in the first case anda bit more in the direction of metaphor and images in
the latter. What is the speed of the tal k? (p. 59)
In response to his own queries, Andersen (1991) offers a few rules:
"The rules we have are all abouc what we shall not do: We shall noc reflecti
on someching that belongs co another context than che conversation of'
che interview syscem, and we muse noc give negative connóé~ciohs""(p. f
61). This first injunction asks us to attend co what is presented co us in
che interview. Often we have prior knowledge of clients from referríng ~
agents, colleagues, or even other clients. If chis informacion is nor
incroduced in che incerview itself, ic should noc be included in che
reflections. One way co address chis issue is to tell cliencs whac you have
be en told about che m at the start of the meeting. The second percains to
che negacive value and impact ofblaming.As Griffith and Griffith (1994)
point ouc, "Anyóne who has accidencally overheard oneself discussed in
a derogatory manner in conversation knows che power of che reflecting
posicion for magnitying hurt" (p. 161). This rule is extended co noc even
participating in negacive conversacions after a session, as chose feelings
have a pervasive quality in redirecting one's energy. As Buddhim warn,
we must guard the thoughts as chey lead to actions.
Andersen's (1991) guidelines also address how reflectors might talk
wich one another: "When we first starced working chis way we often ;''
found ourselves giving monologues. O ver time we ha ve turned to m ueh
more co11versations among the tea m members" (p. 61, emphasis added). This
conversation is che sharing of different understandings, wich refleccing
therapists asking questions of one another and che subsequent exploring
and expanding of one another's ideas as well as those jointly developed .
One quescion may lead to anocher, each pocencially generating more
information within che system becween che parcicipating members.
Madigan (1991) elaborates on conversation among refleccors. He
describes how his experiences on reflecting ceams included numerous
clients. There was little discussion among che reflecting cherapists in front
of the c:lients, as this dialogue took place afcer che cliencs lefc the
 148 - THE REFLECTING TEAM -
consulting room. Consistent with Andersen's (1991) guidelines, he
suggests that therapists should spec[fically ask questions of one another in
front of the client system shifting toa conversation among reflectors with
the inclusion of questions in this dialogue. 4
Madigan continues by describing how the therapist in the reflect-
ing process has the opportunity to open him/herself to change. To
view the therapeutic process otherwise is to perpetuare a subject-ob-
ject dualism that privileges the therapist and implíes that the therapist
has no need for new learning. By omitting the therapist from inquiry,
the reflecting conversation gives support to cultural myths and sends
severa! covert messages to the clients: Therapists are "neutral" in their
thoughts and there are no cultural contexts out of which these ideas
arise; therapists "have it all together" or are more highly "evolved"
than che general population; and therapists can really "see" into others
what is be:,' for them, maincainir~g a hierarchical position for the
profession. On the contrary, therapists' comments are culturally very
rich, like clients, and come from a variety of local discourses. 5
Therapists cannot escape context either, as everyone. enters all thera-
peutic: conversations with, as Gadamer (1975) has described, sorne
"forestructure" or "prejudice" that influences our interactions. 6 To
ignore context would maintain the modernist "one-sided structure
of therapy" to which "we keep ourselves therapeutically trapped"
(Madigan, 1991, p. 15). Thus, by the greater .inclusion of the therapist
in this questioning process, ~11 participants are actually assisted in
making a shift from a modern to a postmodern position in which
multiple descriptions may emerge .
If we as therapists, as Madigan suggests, truly follow a postmodern
position of opening up chis process to include ourselves with greater equity,
might we include che possibility of clients asking questions of us during
the interview? Isn't it possible that their questions of us might lead to the
development of new descriptions or avenue·s of conversation that we had
not considered? When we show some emocional response (or do not and
they think we should) couldn 't the client as k something about our thoughts
' Madtgan, drawtng upon a narrative framework (White, 1989, 1992; White & Epston, 1990;
Zimmerman & Dickerson, 1994), views therapy as directed tcward che opening of new narrattves
and reOections highlighting, for clients, "sparkling new events" or "new dom~ins ofinguiry."
5
1 use "local" here in a manner consistent with that of Geerrz (1973). This local is always in a
di:dectical rel~tionship te a "global."
6
Andersen (1991, 1992) also comments en this postmodern shift and the inherent bias or
"preunderst.1nding" in the guestions that a therapist might ask.In recognition ofthis bias, he Sllggests
that the rc:necting tea m members "follow the same guidelines as the interviewer" and resppnd/in-
teract ~s ene mi¡;ht do 1n the mterview itself (1991, p. 59).
- OjJeri11g Reflectioi!S - 149
or feelings at that moment? At the end of a session, couldn't a client ask
how this session or therapy has had an impact on us? 7
ASKING QUESTIONS OF THERAPISTS
AND REFLECTORS
In response to these questions, I would like to assume that the ans':'~rs~~Q
are "yes" and that clients can be offered,~Qme of the same opportumttes ·
that therapists take with them. In an overt att~mpt both to lessen the
power differentials in therapy (they c.annot be ehmma.ted) and to further
the clinical int~raction, many th~raptsts already ask che~ts whe,ther. \~{
9ave any questtons they would hke to as~ of the. the.raptst. They ~ wt! .
tris during the session and at the end, heanng th.etr ch~nts from a po.st719
of believing that che questions are groundeci tp .Ch$!~ ~~~¡f~~,~·~.~t4!1
and that che questions can redirect the conversatton. They may ~· t e
client:; why they asked a particular question but will almost always answer
the cli.ents, providing it is not beyond what che therapists fe el is comfort-
able and appropriate for them. By having clients ask questtons of the
therapist, severa] outcomes are possible: More of the therapist's perspec-
tive is eiucidated, more of the client's agenda can be introduced, and/ or
a new direction or narrative can unfold. It makes us as therapists more
"transparent" in our thinking and more accountable. We can no longer
rema in shielded by theoretical rhetoric that invariably gives us the u pper
hand. lt also possibly leads us to examine che therapeutic process a~d
poises us to deconstruct the practices that we hold sacre d. It permtts
greater informed consent and disperses with ther;¡pists as neutral or blank
sc:reens. The client is given a backstage pass to the inner workings of a
large society of professionals.
Following Madigan, this questioning process can be extended to the
conversation between reflecting therapists (see Madigan, 1991; White,
1995). All the above advantages are extended to chis reflecting conversa-
tion. This questioning does not lead toa modernist reductionistic process
but actually allows for different understandings to arise and for novel
thoughts to be expressed. Reflecting therapists are encouraged :o ask one
another questions about their comments and thoughts. Thts pro~ess
allows therapists to sicuate their comments within both the conversatwn
\vhite (1993) comments on the impact of the client en therapists, anJ how often we do not
ad:nowlt:dge the "inspiration," ''joy," "metaphors that we are introduced te," and "sustenance that
we obtain in this work." Te help attune himselfto this acknowledgment, he will at times ask clients,
"What impact do you think this [new deve!opment/unique outcome/surprise] has had on me?"
 150 - THE REFLECTING TEAM ·-
chey observed and cheir own lives, making che experience more personal
and bridging che subject-objecc gap. These questions may include sorne
of che following:
'&
• Whar in the incerview triggered your ideas?
• Was there anything specific that you saw or heard that led you to
make these comments?
• Are there any ideas or values that you hold that influenced your
comments?
• Was there something about what was said that touched you
personally?
• Were rhere any experiences in your life chac may have led you to
chose rhoughcs and would you be willing to speak about rhese at
chis rime?
This process of questioning also allows for a greater sense of che
rherapisr 's rransparency co emerge (White, 1992, 1995). This transparency
often fosters greater connection between therapists and clients, which
many clients and therapists see as beneficia! no matter what kind of
therapy one does .
For so me therapists chis shífr .toward greater equity, transparency, and
accountabi liry ro the clienc is "scary." What, then, would lead us ro cake
chis leap ? Why should we challenge existing models of therapy when
they work well as they are? Are there existing resources that we can turn
ro in arder ro aid us in this endeavor?
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Self and Other: Narrative and Social Construction
.V '
Whenever one challenges or examines a therapeutic process, questions
' ·/
\~-- !"
arise, and che questions only lead ro more·questions: What aspects of chis
' ( work facilitare change? Does reflecting it.Self make a difference? Does it
. (
real! y matter what is actually said or )ww it . is said? Why should the
cherapist divulge his/her thinking ro clients? How is that useful to the
cliencs who are rhere for their own problems, searching co expand cheir
own horizons? In otTering reflections, can therapiscs or cliencs really
··. .
understand what che other is saying? Must they develop an exactor even
close represenration of che other's world ro have change occur?
So me ofthese questions can be addressed more genericaily by a turn
1 to tite illtcrpretive tl~lds of narrative construction, hermeneutics, and
social constructionisni~:'fhese approaches describe people as living their
- O.ffering ReflectiotlS - 151
1 •
y'' lives in language, through narratives or stories (cf. Gergen & Kaye, 1992;
Sarbin 1986; White, 1989; White & Epston, 1990) . These stories are
shaped and give shape to our lived experiences. The stories that clients
bring to us are constructed through myriad interpersonal processes,
inc!uding their cur~ent interactions with their therapists and others. In
therapy, it is che stories that clients generare with us about themselves
that change as well as che stories we have about ourselves as therapists.
/ Therapy b:comes a process ~f an interse. ct~,?Jl of stories that allows f01;~
\ / new narratlves or understandq·u~~,~~o eme.rg~~\Nl
t/ Thus, ~~()ries . are relacional. These stories and relacionships are
situatecl within a local culture that carries numerous "norms" and
standards for social exchange. Stories are not, therefore, neutral, as they
always come from sorne social or political context (White & Epston,
1989). Change occurs within social interaction, as we are able t~ .
participare with our clients in co-constructing/ creating/ developing áHJ!
¡./ alternatíve narrative that is more consistent with their lived experiences. ~
This stríving for relaredness is central toche h~rmeneutic and social .,
constructionist positions. As Chalsma (1994) has written in his discussion
of trauma and eñe stories shared with him by Vietnam veterans, "The
hermeneutic attitude entails a willingness to respond to otherness .. . no
matter how vast the g~p" (p. 63) between one person and another. It
implies an openness to other experiences, with che assumption that each
person may change through this process ofinquiry and exploration. This
striving for relatedness is a shift from che individual to che individual in
relation to che other. The development of a narrative or story is
something that we do in conjunction with others, and the self cannot
arise without the ocher (Shotter, 1989, 1993). This is also che epitome of
the social constructionist perspective (see Gergen, 1985).
The development of a self through conversation with the other
accents a shift toward a dialogical process of self-definition and challenges
che Cartesian duality as well che modernist perspective of che self (cf.
Kerby, 1991; Penn & Frankfurt, 1994; Shotter, 1993). From che perspec-
tive of modernity, the development of self in'.t0lves ~ disowning or even
a víolence toward che other (Sampson, 1993). The other ís experíenced
as foreign and marginalized, as evídenced in our treatment of women
and pecople of color in the Western dominant culture.
However, each individual has, according to Gadamer (1975), a
horizon or vista from which we encounter the world of the othtr. The
intersection of o m vista and that of others can be a "fusíon of horizons."
This fu~.ion of horizons is the space developed through a shared mean-
ing-making process in whích each participant has a stake. This space does
not: preclude differences or che prejudices or biases of self and the other
 152 - THE REFLECTING TEAM -
bu e allows for chem. Ic is in chis fusion that joint narrative conscruccíon
cakes place.
Thisjoint narra ti ve construction is pare of a circular process of shared
meaning making between individuals. Ic is not, necessarily, an intersub-
jective process, as che subject actually is displaced inco che shared realm
of mutual understanding of che self-ocher. While we can attempt to try
to underscand che con cene, process, and concexc ofanother's life, we can
never truly come to "know" another's world but can only construcc a
mutual domain in which there is a .shared, but not identical, under-
standing. The development of understanding is a process that is derived
from che secs of information chat both therapist and client bring co a
conversacion. The data of these interactions can only be "our own
constructions of other people's conscruccions of what they and cheir
compatriocs are up co" (Geertz, 1973, p. 9). Out of chis process arises a
new whole with its own encompassing parcs.8 To participa te in chis shared
world involves che temporary relinquishing of any fixed notion of"self"
and adopting a willingness co enter into che world of che mutual
generation of und.:;· .;~;:.nding with another. Underscanding cannoc be in
che domaín of a single individual, as "understanding involves two discincc
subjeccs" (Weinsheimer, 1991, p. 82). Ic can become, perhaps, vJhc
Gergen (19?4) refers co as che relacional sublime, where even spoken
language is not needed for conne.ction to continue and self and other
are blended.
U nderstanding arises when individuals relate to one another
chrough language . In describing che work ofRichard Rorty, Hall (1994)
says that "from che perspective of understanding, one person's language
ís litcle more than a vague supplemenc to the language ofanother" (p. 6).
Understanding is nota reductionistic process, moving coward one cruth.
In therapy it is often che experience of one of che participancs saying
somethin g that che other experiences as coherent with his/her own
choughts, feelings, or behaviors. It is an interpretation that fits for che
ocher. Yec an irony occurs, as described in che work of Fish (1989) and
Derrida (1982), that.che bese any cwo communicators can do is "act like
they understand each other," treating, reaccing, and no e objecting to one
another, as if rhey understand one another. Then chey can "say that che y
understand each other" (Taylor; 1992, p. 181).
Understanding is not facilicaced merely by repeacing ochers' words.
~ "Only as interprecacion i11 other words" can we advance our understanding
of another's position (Weinsheimer, 1991, p. 82). By presenting one's ideas
. Recencly a couple 1 had been seeing for severa! weeks carne in quite
8
This tntersecCi on of participants forms what can also be described as the "hermeneutic ." lt is a
rebtionship be rween participants that incflldes their individual and collective histories, culwral and
local knowledges. what is airead y known, and what JS new.
- Olfering Re.flections - 153
in other words we offer che opportunity to have che individuals think in
different ways. Therapists do not stop with their own words as che final
words but continue on a search and examination for new words,
narratives, and descripcions. Connection is brought about through boch ·
using a client's words and.rephrasing in other words . This position is bese
exemplified in Wliiee's (Sykes Wylie, 1994) dogged inquiry inco clients'
unique outcomes and his scrupulous notation of che words they use to
represent these outcomes. These words are then offered back to che
clients in both their original form and in Whiee's own wording based on
his different understandings of them, which mighc include describing
successful steps, unique occurrences, or resistance to che pull of che
dominant cultural discourse.
These words are not ineended eo represent a "true" reality. They
are always metaphors that cake on meaning through social exchange .
These interpretacive words or metaphors are always open for reincer-
pretation by che participancs. Mecaphor "always asks to be translaced
into another discourse" and "mecaphorical discourse remains sus-
pended in a genera ti ve play of similarities and differences that do es noc
of itself termina te in a univoca] concept" (Weinsheimer, 1991, p. 66).
The metaphor muse, however, carry with it sorne connection to the
language of che other, as che connection to che other is central co chis
proc1!SS . Ifche language is too differenc ic will no ebe understood . Hence,
we are always dealing wich an exchange of discinccions. The are of
therapy is to. blend these distinctions, offer a difference, and remain
preSf:nt to negotiate the unknown future as a new gestalt is formed
through che expansion of ea eh 's perspective, cocreating a new view,
experience, or descripcion.
Thus, therapy becomes a "generacive conversation" (Gergen & Kaye,
1992) chrough a continua] incerplay of ideas searthing for alternacive
narratives chac can offer new coherence to one's life,joining che pase with
che future. This is che offering of che reflecting process: a presentacion of
both similar and other words co che client's words and che opportunity to
develop another understanding in che exchange between che cwo. These
worcls that bring about understanding, not being representational but
always being metaphors, cannot be "correct'' but only pragmacic. We
always run the "risk" ofbeing misunderstood. ·
Misunderstandings
delighced with themselves and the changes that chey had made during
the pase few weeks. One of ehem said to me, "What you said to us Jase
session was really righc on and has hada tremendous impact on us ."They
 154 - THE REFLECTING TEAM -
then wenc on to explain what T had said. As it happened, and r think that
this is not uncommon in therapy, I did not remember saying anything
like what they remembered and actually thought I had said something
else! In the time between meetings one or both of us had somehow
"changed" the words and/or meaning that had been expressed. I realized
that chis was not a new experience for me. Many times either I or my
clients have "misunderstood" what I thought I had said. 9
A similar experience occurred during an interview that Lynn
Hoffman and I "vv~,;,c doing with a couple. The clients had talked about
"butting" heads with one another, and HÓffman thought that they had
said "budding." She offered sorne reflections including an idea about the
budding of !1ew ideas in their rebtionship. The coupJe commented on
this misunderstanding but were quite taken with che idea of budding
rather than butting. The misunderstanding allowed the conversation to
cake a shift in a more posicive direction, including their giving severa!
examples of times that they indeed were budding into new experiences
and exchanges.
These experiences are further supported by the work of Levine
(1991) in his d.issercation comparing post-Milan thinking with che
Mutual Regress10n Model (MRM) (Gianino & Tronick, 1988). 10 The
MRM addresses itself to the interaccion becween infant and caregiver
and how rhey regulare their intersubjective interactions. This research
highlights a panicipatory role in che development of communication
between the infant and caregiver. This comn1Unication is developed
through both a "match" and "mismacch" of interactions between the
two, not regulated by either one or the other, as earlier research tended
to descri?e. Levine (1991) likens chis interaccion co a dialogue or
conversation. He noted that interactions include mulciple misfits be-
tween two participants where there is a progressive (sometimes continu-
ous, sometimes discontinuous) movement coward a consensual exchange
or "fic"between che two. This state ofaccunement (Stern, 1985) is neither
th.e produce of one. ~or o~ th.e other bu e a new reciproca! arrangement
with each as a part1c1pant m 1ts construction.
l wonder about ches e misunderstandings or misma eches. Even if we
could reconstruct "exactly" what · was said in an interview, (e.g., by
9
"
These misunderst.1ndin¡;s are difTerent from Rorty ;s (1982) use of Harold Uloo '·
· d ". . m s conceptlon o
¡·
strong miSrea Jngs 1n whtch" reader "beats a text into a shape which will serve his own purpose"
(p. 151).
10
L . T at a static place as long as we do not reify any particular position and
evJne utt 1zes the ter~ "post~Milan" to refer to variety of Jpproaches, including but limited to
the followmg. Andersen s reilecrmg process, che conversacion.1i model of Anderson Jod Goolishian
(1988); the namctve Jpproach of White and Epston (1989), and che solution-focused models of de
Shazer (1982), Hudson O'Hanlon and Weiner-Davis (1989),and others.
- O.ffering Rejlectio11S - 155
reviewing a video), neither the clients nor I could ever truly "understand"
what was "actually" meant for the meaning can only be known in the
trarisaction, and that meaning is always open for continua! reconstruction
and interpretation. While encouraging therapists ro take a position of
"not knowing" and ·allowing new ideas ro emerge in the conversation, I
réalize that there are stil! many instances when therapists believe that they
know what might be a more use fu! course of action than another. These
ideas should not be ignored but considered as only one of many different
directions that can be taken.
Here, again, hermeneutics and social constructionism may offer
sorne added support. Hermeneutics, as described earlier, stress es che val u e
of understanding, not of a true world "out there" but of a socíally
construeted one in which perceptions fit within sorne consensual
domai:n. As described in an earlier article (Lax, 1992), understanding is~-a
valued componen e of the therapeutic interaction. Both the client's and
the therapist's perceived experiences ofbeing understood help facilitare
che co:nversation. When there is misunderstanding it does not mean that
there is a break in the therapeutic relationship but a state üf transition
and tension. Ir is'a time when curiosity can be presenc on both che client's
and the therapist's pares. It is out of chis misunderstanding thac a different
understanding can arise. For even when we presenc our version ofwhat
we understand of a client's presentation, it is scill not an "accurate
representation" ofhis/her world. Even in che m ose pure Rogerian model,
when we are mirroring or reflecting back to cliencs what they just said,
it is different from che original. Again, we are only communicating in
metaphors. We cannot know cheir meanings but only the ones we
construct. This is not to imply that all words are up for continua!
reinterpretation, for as Rorty (1989) has said, "Metaphors are unfamiliar
uses of old words, but such uses are possible only against the background
of other old words being used in old familiar ways" (p. 41). Misunder-
standing can further open the door toa clinician's sense of curiosity (cf.
Cecchin, 1987). The creation of a new narrative occurs in the context
of chis curiosity, match, and mismatch between the participan cs. Com-
munication researcher and cybernetician Steier (1991) notes thar nor
only is chis mismatch frequent but it is exactly what researchers or
therapists should be looking for and examining in their work.
Thus, it is out of this position of "misunderstanding" that under-
standi:ng may arise, wich understanding always transitional. We are never
believe that it is the bestfor all times and contexts. The therapist can cry
to stay with misunderstandings more intentionally, asking questions, as it
is out of the unknown that creativicy may arise.
 156 - THE REFLECT/NG TEAM -
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Offering Reflections: Bridging Local Communities
When a psychocherapisc and a client "encer into a chei:apeutic relacionship,
: they become part of a local community (even as small as two) chac h;;j
. implicicly agreed to develop a local reality via the mechods, cechniques, ideas,
and narratives ofthe psychology ofthe day and the region as they understand
che m" (Peterson & Lax, in press). A reflecting cea m is, as Whice (1994) has
said, "another form of community that offers ideas, opinions, and acknow-
ledges che other community's (che client's) life experiences." Within these
newly construc ted local communities, we are concinually in che process of
having interactions with che risk of"changing our minds" (Geerrz, 1986, p.
114). The process between client and therapisr is rhen one co "explore the
characcer of che space beC\veen them" (Geertz, 1986, p. 119). This is what
therapy is about: a co-construction of meaning based on an exchange of
each parcicipanr's local position with che risk thac our narratives will change
chrough che conversacion chac takes place between us. Ifche narracive of one's
life is truly developed in che shared space between ~ndividuals, chen che
refleccing process highlighrs borh che separation and che connecrion be-
rween che cwo locals worlds.
Wit~in chis postmodern perspective, the offering ofreflections to
cliencs can be undersrood in many different ways. Andersen (1991) has
.¡
"·..,.
..._,
described it as an extension of the calking and iistening positions, in
which che cliencs can be in each posirion wich cheir respective benefits .
Fo r example, 1 have talked wich many therapists who have been in
non-refleccing-sryie group supervision where they presenta case co che
orhers and are in che calking position throughout the conversation. When
che other group members offer ideas (at times compecitively to see who's
ideas are more "on targec"), cher~ is an expectation that che presenting
cherapisr will respond ro each commenc. This process winds up like che
trading of baseball cards char sorne of us did when we were younger :
"Got ir, got ic, need ir, goc it." When one is not in the ralking posicion
buc in a listening posirion, hearing comments-reflections, one feels a
decreased pull ro respond to each commenc and · is able co listen co a
range ofideas, caking in whac is relevant and potentially allowing a gesralt
ro form. This gescalc m ay be a compilation of severa! ideas, arising from
a sense of cooperarían noc competicion, multiplicity not reduccionism.
Sells ec al. (1994) describe how cliencs say that being in the lisrening
posirion gives "chem more confidence and made them feel more
comforrable" (p. 260). Clients state: "The pressure is off. I sic back, cake
a break, and listen ro them (che ream) dissect it (the earlier incerview)
. .. you see rhe problem differently"(p. 261) .
With rhe reflecting cherapists in che talking posirion, a variety of
157
- Offiring Rejlectio11S -
types of ret1ections can be offered. These may in:lude metap~ors, stori.es, :
di rece suggestions:hypótl1eses, positive connotanons, alternattv~ ~escrtp:~
"" tions, unique outcomes or sparkling moments, perso~al remtmscences
:.- or feelings, restatements of clients words, other quest1ons to be as~ed,
{~ J\·..'' cheoretical explorations, pragmatic suggestions, and even wandenngs
inco reverie.· .
In offeringreflections, we need co be aware chat chis entire pr~cess
~ay be foreign to the clients in form, style, and canten t . Chencs w!ll be
talked 11bout rather than talked to. Reflections may be done m a style that
is somewhat distant or "intimidating" initially to the clients, as the
rherapist(s) may not be known to them or maintain ~ye contact wirh rhe
cliencs (Sells et al. , 1994) . The words rhey speak, whtle flowmg from che
inicial conversacion, may be different, with new ideas presented. Hence
there needs to be a joining phase of reflecting comparable to that of
cherapy. If clients have not met the refleccing therapists befare (perhaps
chey h:1ve been in separare rooms), an introd~c~ion is ofte~ useful , a~ we;~
as stating the team members' names and affihatlon to che me or setcmg.
Role of Reflections
Retiections themselves follow a pattern similar ro a client's scory.. T z ere
i~ usually a beginning, a middle, and an en d. However, as we se e w1th our ,
cliencs and our own lives, narratives are not always coherenc and do noc ·~
always move toward closure wich any cercain continuiry. As feminisr
writer:; such as Mary Catherine Bateson (1990) and Mary Gergen (1992)
have described, narratives may be discontinuous, make abrupc changes
or shifrs or even be somehow illogical yet scill be viable toche individual.
Refleccions retain these same characceristics of freedom toward discon-
tinuity, lack of closure, or the offering of rad~cal. s~if~s in conten.t and
context. If anything, they should 11ot be reductwmsttc m nature With all
reflectors agreeing on one idea, nor should one singular rheme be
presented.
Andersen (1991) belicves that reflecting conversacions can be ex-
tended to include "interventions" as ideas offen!d to the client system.
These may be in a variety of forms but are noc intended. co be "given"
to che clienc as che way co be. Racher, these more d1recc forms of
intervention are given as ideas of an incervention chac che client syscems >
may want co examine for themselves (cf. Hoffman, 1992). This perspec-
tive maintains a view of collaboration with the cliencs but does not move
11
White (1994) requests that members of a reflecting tea m begin by telling the clients who they are
and identifying their professional affiliation. He asks each person ro repeat h1s/ he r name before
making comments.

158 - THE REFLECTING TEAM -
to the modernist position of the therapist as an expert who "knows"
what mighc be bese for his/her client. It allows therapists to call upon
.....__their expertise and experience, making them available to the clients.
12
These ideas of interventions are an addition or expansion to those ideas
of che client.
In contrast to Andersen's reflecting process, Whire (1995; Madigan,
1991; Dickerson, N eal, & Zimmerman, 1995) has developed his own
style of reflecting. White (1995) pro poses four parts to an interview: che
therapists's interview of the clients, the reflections, che clients' responses
to che reflections, and a de briefing and "deconstruction of the therapy
itself" (p. 182). During reflection he pro poses four classes of therapist
responses . He encourages reflecting therapists to join with the clients
inicially, and then co orient themselves to the cliencs' unique outcomes
and connect che sparkling moments that were expressed in che interview.
He describes chis response as orienting to a "mystery," in which che
reflectors are curious ~:-:::! :1lso "respond to those developments that they
believe might constitute preferred developments co the people seeking
consultation" (p. 183). N ext, reflectors may engage in conversation abo u e
"landscape of action" and "landscape of consciousness" questions (p. 184).
This is a zig-zagging process of connecting behaviors and meanings
together through time: pase, present, and future. Finally, there is decon-
struction, in which reflectors ask questions of one another, as described
earlier in chis chapter.
. White 's work stresses the role of reílectors as participancs and
/wi.cn~sses to the therapy process, providing supporc for che already
ex1stmg changes that are or may be unfolding in the cherapy context.
The witnessing process can be extended to diverse areas of therapeutic
encounters . One of these is exemplified in the Vancouver Anti-Ano-
rexia / Anti-Bu!imia League established by Madigan (1994), whích is an
expansive network of supporting witnesses. ·
White dislikes the use of interventions in reflectíons, as he believes
that they continue the power imbalance between cherapist and client and
maintain the subject-object duality o fa modern world.For White (1994),
"intervention constructs a one-way account of therapy." He is more
concerned wich the reflections focusing on individual's personal relations
to che conversation and extending one community to another. White
se es as the purpose of che reflecting tea m noc to introduce interventions
· but an opportunicy to support clients in an examination of che Únique
outcomes that they have developed and what these outcomes may have
l)lt would be foohsh to t;,dicve th;¡t th.~se comment! d~ not carry sorne wci¡;ht,;~s they ;¡re coming
from soc121ly S2nCtloned profcss1onal. Howcver, a commentary on power dilferentials also may be
proposed by the rcflecting therapist{s).
- Offering Rejlections - 159
touched in the lives ofthose watching them. It is also an opportunity for
othcrs to support clients' resistance to the dominant narracives of the
culture under whose influence they have come and provide sorne
externa! recognition to their development of alternative narratives in
their líves.
Re~aidless of the style of che reflectiohs, as stated :arlier there are .·
occasioris when reflecting comments are completely 1gnored by the - -
client. At these times clients and therapists report various experiences ,
ínclud1ng not having any connectíon to the reflectíons, the team "missing
che poínt completely," or not being able to listen to the reflections, as
they were still engrossed in so me aspect of the prior conversation. I have
had chis last experience most frequently wíth couples who are strongly
disagreeing. They are notable to Jet go oftheir former positions evento
free themselves ro listen, des pite any elucidation of alternative behaviors
or new descriptions, and the reflector(s) do not recognize chis until after
che reflections are over. It is the role of che therapist ro explore this ·
experience. Questions can be asked ofthe clients such as, "What would
you have Jiked chem to have said?" "What parts of our conversation did
you understand and what parts did you not?" Again, rather than see the
ignored reflections as "mistakes" (or client "resistance") they are better
experienced as misunderstandings that require further inquiry as a
transition to other understandings. Curiosity on the pares of reflecting
therapists can facilitare the transition from ignored comments to new
understanding.
There are also no rules about how mariy reflections may be offered
during an in!:ervíew. When there is a team present and there is a changing
of rooms or positions, time beco mes more of a factor than anything else.
Usually more than two reflections become too time consuming for che
length of an interview. A cherapist working withouc a ceam may offer
numerous r·eflections during che course of the interview, having a ...
"convcrsacion" with him/herself while the clients listen . The therapist
can explain co the cliencs that this is how he/she works and would it be
acceptable to the clients if the therapist has these reflecting interludes,
sharing his/her thoughts with them while they listen. The therapist can
look away from the clients, talk to che wall, or even his/her shoe. Clients
are then free to be in che Jistening posicion and then comment or ask
questións of the therapist after the therapisc is done.
At che end of che re.flections, the cli~nts are !efe in che position of
being able to cake with them what they fi~d use fu! in the conversation.
Often these are underscorings of aspects of the prior conversation and
sometirnes new ideas. At times a gestalt is formed in which che c!iencs
develop a new understanding that was not present during the earlier
intervi~w <>r in che refleccions. At chese times it is even difflcult to
 160 - THE REFLECTING TEAM -
determine who che "auchor" ofche new idea was, as ic appears co emerge
from that middle ground becween client and refleccors. I am no longer
surprised when I hear a client say, "I'm noc sure who said chis, buc ..."
and describe someching c)1ac no one had specifically said. In their Jiscening
to che comments, something new emerges chat was authored by neither
che clients nor che reflectors; Thís is a creative jump where che bridge
becween clients and therapist has been made and something has devel-
oped within chac •!,''lC'e becween the two parcicipancs or local commu-
nities. · opportunity for opening up even more conversational space to al! and
Types of ReflectiüiH and Rules of Procedure
Griffich and Griffich (1994) summarized Andersen's (1991) rules of
procedure very succinctly. They list six categories:
1. Speculacions are restricred ro che conversacions thac have caken
place in che room; . ideas? How did yo u come co that idea? Whac íife experiences of your
2. Ideas are presented tentatively, with qualifiers such as "! was
wondering," "perhaps," "possibly," or "ic's just an idea ...";
3. Commencs are formed as positive or logical connotations as
opposed ro negative attributions or b!aming;
4. Team members maintain eye contacc wich one another, without
being discourteous, maincaining the separation between che
listening and calking positions;
5. Perce.p~ions are shared and "consultancs' choughcs, images, or
1magmmgs are more emphasized than evaluating, judging, or
explammg what was observed" (Griffith & Griffith, 1994, p. 161);
and
6. Reflections accempc ro present both sides of a dilemma, moving
from an "either-or" position coa "both-and" position.
This !ase rule can be expanded co include a shíft co a "neither-
nor" posicion where someching quite different frotn whac was dis-
cussed is presenced as a reframe . in keeping wich Andersen's idea abour
co111mencs ~ollow_ing in a s~milar fashion to those of che therapist
d!Jnng che mtervtew, reflecttons should noc be too usual or unusual
from th~ pacing,style,orwording ofche conversation preceding chem.
Ther~p:sts should try to use . che language and metaphors of cliencs,
avo1dmg. psychologica) a~1d 'diagnoscic cerms. Here again atcention is
to che dtfference that m1ght make a difference in che conversation.
The cask of che reflecting therapisc(s) is eo balance che cension between
levels of difference. Comments muse be connected ro what has
preceded them but be neither too much che same nor too discrepant.
- OjJeri11g Rejlectio11s - 161
To move too much in che direction of either side may not be useful
co che clients and che emerging joint narrative.
Anocher type of refleccion is new information chac while scimulated
by che therapeutic conversation, is somewhat tangencial to it. Andersen
(1991) refers to chis type as a "surprise" (p. 67). Surprise comments may
seem too unusual to th.e clients, yet when prefaced by sorne explanacion
of how che therapist got co chis idea they may make more sense to che
partid pan cs. When surprise comments are offered, chere is che wonderful
furcher challenge the dominan e discourses ofboth clients and therapists.
Surprises can also be generated by one reflectíng cherapisc asking
questions of another, wich the intent of deconscructing che reflecting
therapist's comments. This ís a process of making the unsaid "said" and
available co all participants rather than becween only the therapist and
his/her colleagues in a conversation that may take place afterwards:
questions such as, "Whac in che cliencs' conversation led you to these
own led you to these comments?" Again, che discourses that led to chese
forrnulations are examined and not left as a priori truths leading to an
ail-knowing answer toche dilemma. The clients are freer to choose what
of these discursive offerings are actually useful to chem and not ha ve che
therapisc make these decisíons for them by withholding information
. abouc their "underlying choughts."
At tirhes,all reflecting team members may share the same idea. When
one reflector scates an idea, even if che next person has che same idea, it
is that person's responsibility to come up with something else. 13 If al!
therapists state only one thought, che clients may be !efe wich che idea
thac this is the only option. The emphasis here is on a "smorgasbord of
ideas" racher than a reductionistic presencation. This is aided by noc
permitting any prívate talkíng among che reflectors wacching che inter-
view, thereby noc allowing che refleccors co influence one anocher's
thinking prior to che presencacion in fronc of the di enes .
Consistent with che above, there is anocher aspect chac has received
little attention in che literature: che role of modelíng chat is inherent in
the offering of reflections. We stress how important it is co be respeccful
of client~; and break down che subject-object dualíties that exist in the
larger culture. By accing in a manner that demonstrates multiplicity of
ideas, active agreement and disagreement within a conversation, careful
listening to one another's views, and respectfu!r:.~ss, we :l!'e providing our
13
C!early . there are exceptions to this idea, particlllarly when che clients have come to a single
resolution th~t has already shown its benefits. However, the door to .altern~tives should never be
closed.

162 - THE REFLECTING TEAM -
clients with another experience in the worid. For example, reflectors on
teams do have different ideas and opinions. One way to avoid an
either-or posicion is co preface a potentially polarizing comment by
saying something su eh as, "That is interesting.I have so me other thoughcs
'about that." "Ocher thoughcs" are.in áddition to, not opposed to, and make
a big di1Terence. lt is not up to reflectors to determine what should fic
-· -- for che clienc, as that is che client's business. This is also augmcnted ag;¡in
by encouraging clients co ask questíons of both che therapist and the
refleccors during and afcer che interview. This is an experierice we would
like to foscer as ic subverts dominan e paradigms and ways of being that
people have been subjugated to throughout their lives. In addition, by
our not being knowing experts who operate from a hierarchical position,
-.. we are allowing clients to take greater authority over their lives. This
modeling should not be done with a new political correctness of "how
life should really be led" but from a genuine sense of appreciation of che
interaction with che actual Ji fe of che ocher in chis shared work.
Following Andersen 's (1987, 1991) guídelines, reflectíons should be
bríef, caking no more chan 5 or 10 minutes. Recipients of reflections
seem co be able co absorb only so much information at any one time, so
reflectors need to be aware of not providing too much information,
whether it is new or not. If each person on a four-member team made
two comments and then chere was a conversacion, there would already
be nine related but possibly differeric ideas presented. Lengch of com-
ments ("mere is beccer") is not thc significant factor in an intervie~.
Often a few shorr remarks with a conversation among reflectors exam-
ining chem leads to the most fruitful reflections.
Regarcling size, different formacs and sectings require different size
groups , and no specific limications have yet been fou11d as a "rule."
However, in usual clínica! practice, my colleagues and 1 have found that
up to four or flve might be che maximum, wich three as a good number.
le is also important to include in the reflections comments relaced
co al! members takíng pare in che interview. ít is just as powerful co be
·omicced from commencary as ic is to be addressed. This includes che
therapiscs, as oftcn they are Jefe out of the reflecting comments yec are
very mucha part ofthe conversing system.Earlier ic was mentioned how
questions may be posed thac were not asked in che intervíew. Teams of
therapiscs who have worked together for a while also get to "know" one
another. There may be interviews in which the reflectors are surprised
that a particular therapist dirlnot askabout sorne aspect of che conversa-
cien chat usually that therapist might have. Refleccors can comment on
chis surprist·, saying something su eh as the following: "1 noticed chac Sarah
did not ask abouc [drinking/parentíng/gender issues, etc.] during che
interview. Thac is urm~u:¡] for her and 1 was wonderíngifshejust did not
- Offeriug Rejlectiot1S - 163
thínk about aski~g about it, or she decided not to.l wonder what would
ha ve happened if she had? Maybe she will be willing to te!~ u~ and/ or
che clit:nts her thoughcs on chis la ter." In that w.ay the thera.plst 1s free to
comment or not on che copie, and it is at least mtroduced m che room.
SUMMARY
Asking questions of reflectors (or even therapists) about their thinking
helps to open up other dialogues/topí.cs that pe~·haps were thought not
relevant to the therapeutic conversa non (Mad1gan, 1991 ). By ~econ­
struecing therapists' comments, they are able to further explore. th~1r ow:-
unsaid discursive practices, helping them be come more expans!Ve m the1r
ways ofthinking and interacting. By making this unsaid "said" an~ more
available to all participants, rather than between only che therap1st and
his/her colleagues in a conversation that might take p~ace afterwards or
noc at all, clients are invited to take greater ownersh1p of the therapy
process ancl determine whac narrative threads might be useful.ly woven
together. The process of questioning allows for a m~c.ual meam.ng-mak-
ing process to occur becween che two or more part1c1pants. Th1s furcher
breaks clown the subject-object separation that our Western cultur.e
supports. A.sking questions also serves to "thícken" che narrative that lS
unfolding, aiding and supporting creacive processes and change m
therapists and clients.
O bviously, chis process makes interviews longer and perhaps
"slower" than the usual cype of therapeutic conversarían. However, the
lengch of therapy often becomes shorter in cerms of sessions, as it also
brings other conversations to che forefron~- thac had been margmahzed
(by their not being overtly stated) that all partlclpants can comment
upon. . . . . .
By valuing misunderstanding rather than margmahzmg lt, pressure
is taken off the cherapist to be an all-knowing "expert" or even to be
"right." Mismatches and misunderscandings are in~egrated into che
therapeucic convers~tion perhaps leading to sparkhng evencs 111 the
present. These misunderscandings may provide a path to new uncler-
standings between cherapist and clienc that neither had cons1dered
before. ·
i,3y emphasizingthís process of questioning ancl valuing mis un de~·- ··, "
standings, che therapisc reintroduces reflexivity into the therape~tlc /
process. The therapist makes his/her own process ~n object of obse.r~at1on
for both him/herself and the client. We can agam become partlCipants
in che world along with our clients, strivíng co gain freedom from
restrictive patterns of thought and action.
 ¡ --

164 - THE REFLECTINC TEAM - - O.fferi11g Reflectiom - 165

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Gianino, A., & Tronick, E. Z. (1988). The mutual regulation model: The infant's
self and mteractive regulation and coping and defensive capacities. In T.
My appreciatim to Sydney Crystal, MSW, Steven Friedman PhD Roger Field, P. McCabe, & N. Schneiderman (Eds.), Stress and coping across
Peterson, PhD,'oseph Pumilia, EdD, and my colleagues and stude,nts at Antioch development (pp. 47-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
New ~ngl~nci 3raduate School and the Brattleboro Family Institute for assis- Gottlieb, C., & Gottlieb, D. (1990). The marital cotherapist team as a reflecting
tance m develcpmg the ideas in this chapter and for comments on an earlier team in couple's therapy.Journa/ ofCouples Therapy, 1, 67-76.
draft. Griffith, J. L., & Griffith, M. E. (1992). Speaking the unspeakable: Use of the
refiecting position in therapies for somatic symptoms. Family Systems
Medicine, 1O, 41-51.
REFERENCES Griffith,J. L., & Griffith, M. E. (1994). Tiu body speaks: Therapeutic dialoguesfor
min:d-body problems. New York: Basic Books.
Andersen, T. (1 C.S7). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical Hall, D. L. (1994). Richard Rorty: Prophet and poet of the new pragmatism. Albany:
work. Fnmly Process, 26(4), 415-428. State University ofNew York Press.
Ander:en, T. (E:l.) · ~~ 9~1)_. _The rejlecting tea m: Dialogues and dialogues about the Hoffman, L. (1992). A reflexive stance for family therapy. In S. McNamee & K.
d:alogues. 1'-ew íurK: J'<orton. Gergen (Eds.), T1urapy as social constmction. (pp. 7-24).Newbu¡y Park, CA: Sage.
Andersen, T. (1 \92). Reflections on reflecting with f.1 milies. In s. McNamee & Hudson O'Hanlon, W.,& Weiner-Davis,M. (1989). In search ofsolutions: A new
K. J. Gerge1 (Eds.), Therapy as socin/ co:1stnwio:: (pp. 54-68). London· Sa e direction in psychotherapy. New York: Norton.
Anderson, H .. t Goolishian H (19RR) H · · · · g · Katz, A. (1991). Afterwords: Continuing the dialogue. In T. Andersen (Ed.), The
. . . ' .· - -,·- um¡¡n systems as hngu1sttc systems:
Prehmmar· and evolvmg tdeas about the implications for clinical theory rejlecting team: Dialogt1es a11d dialogues about the dialogues (pp. 98-126). New
Fam:ly Proess, 27(4), 371-395. · York: Norton.
Bateson, M. C (1990). Composing a /{(e. New Y()rk: Dutton. Kerby, P. (1991). Narrative and the selj. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Cecchm, G. (1 ~87). Hypothesizing, circularity and neutrality revisited: An Lax, W. D. (1989). Systemic family therapy with young children in the family:
111VJtanon t> cunos1ty. Family Process, 26,405-413 Use of the reflecting team. In J. J. Zilbach (Ed.), Children in fa mi/y tlterapy
Chalsma, W. (19~4). In the chambers ormemory Unpttblt'sh.ed do t ¡ •· · (pp. 55-74). New York: Haworth.
D 'd . :; · e ora a1ssertat1on.
.av¡ ~on,J., & ,ussard1, D. J. (1991). Reflecting dialogues in supervision and b.
Lax, W. (1992). Postmodern thinking in a clinical practice. In S. McNamee &
t;a 1 ~ 1 n g. In CAndersen (Ed.), The r~flecting temu: bialog11es anddialog11es abo:-11
1
K. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social constrtlction (pp. 69-85). Newbmy Park,
t 1e w o.~lll'!(pp. 143-156). New York: Nonon. CA Sage.
Dernda,J. (1982. Margins of philosophy Chicag()· University of Ch · p Levine, W. (1991). Post-Milan therapy and the mutual regulation model. Disser-
de Shazer S /1 9l2) p, .rb ·,rfi . . !cago ress.
' . \ ¡ • attems oJ rte_¡. ami/y therapy: An ecosystemic ap''lfoach New tation Abstracts Intemational.
York: Guliford Press. r · Lussardi, D. J., & Miller, D. (1990). A reflecting team approach to adolescent
Dickerson, V, NeJ,J.,& Zimme_rman,J. (1995). Gi~idelinesfor rejlections. Unpublished substance abuse. In T. C. Todd & M. Selekman (Eds.), Family therapy with
. manuscnpt,3ay Area Fam¡Jy Therapy Trainir1g Associates Cupertino CA adolescent substance abllse (pp. 227-240). New York: Norton.
F1sh, S. (1989). Ding what comes natural/y. Durham NC· D k' U · ·' p. Madigan, S. (1991, Fall). Discursive restraints in therapist practice: Situating
G ad amer, H.-G. 1975). Truth and n:ethod New ''ork· , . u e n1vers1ty ress
G e , . . r' ,
Cont'muum. . therapist questions in the presence of the family. D11lwich Centre Newsletter,
eertz, C. ( 117 3,. The 111/erpretation of wltures. New York: Basic B 0 k pp. 13-20.
Geertz, C. ( 19~6) The uses of diversity. Michigan Quarterly Revieu1, ~ /'1 05- 123. Madigan, S. (1994). Body politics. Family Therapy Networker, 18(6), 27.
Gergen, K .J. (1 :)8J). The soct;¡] construCtlOnist mavement in modern psycholo Milier, D., & Lax, W. D. (1988). lnterrupting de;¡d]y struggles: A retlectmg team
Amencnn Ps;chologist, 40(3), 266-275. gy. model for working with couples.Jollmal of Strategic a111f Systemic Tltempie.',
Gergen ' K . J . (1914 ' n~ ~wuc¡
· t.·-) . 'T''
'11erapeuttc· communication: New challenge( Pa 7(3), 16-22.
presented atNew Voices in Human Systems, Northampton MA .. per Penn; P., & Frankfurt, M. (1994). Creating a participant text: Writing, multiple
Gerge~, K. J.' & Kaye, J. (1992). Beyond natrative in the ~egotiation ot' volee, n.arrative multiplicity. Family Process, 33(3), 217-231.
t erapeutlc neanmg In S McNamee & K G (Ed 5 ) TI
,
construction (rp
r · -
i
166 85) ·L d S
. on on: age.
· ergen • • 1erapy as social Peterson, R. L., & Lax, W. D. (in press). Toward theoretical and Sllpervisory
multiplicity. In W.T. Forbes, K.Edwards, K. Poli te, & S.- Y. Tan (Eds.), Clinical
(,ergen, M. (1992. Life stories: Pieces of a dream. In G. C. Rosenwald & R L training in professional psychology: Approaching the year 2000. Washington, DC:
Ochberg (Ed.),Stoned lives (pp. 127-144). New Ha ve 1 CT· y J U . . ·.. American Psychological Association and National Council ofSchools and
Press. t • • . a e n1vets1ty
Programs of Professional Psychology.