This essay examines the systemic guiding principles of neutrality, hypothesizing, and circularity, historically developed by the Milan Team of Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, and Prata (12, 13). With the reorganization of these team members (see 11 for a summary of the distinctions between the work of the Selvini-Palazzoli and Prata research team and the Cecchin and Boscolo training team), different reconstructions of the original systemic principles have evolved. New understanding of the concepts of circularity, hypothesizing, and neutrality are now possible, given the systemic epistemology on which the early Milan model was based. It should be emphasized, however, that the ideas presented in this essay are most associated with the systemic work of the Cecchin and Boscolo team.

This paper presents the results of our research focused on individuating and elaborating principles and methods that we have found highly productive in interviewing the family. We have synthesized these principles under the headings Hypothesizing, Circularity, and Neutrality, giving conceptual definitions, descriptions, and practical examples of their application. Our purpose is to aid the therapist in stimulating the family to produce meaningful information, which is indispensable to the therapist in making a therapeutic choice.

Within the field of marriage and family therapy, a debate has emerged regarding issues of control and noninstrumentality Concerned with the limitations inherent in the idea of power, many therpists/theoreticians have suggested the adoption of a less instrumental position. Oscillating processes, such as the swing from power to nonistrumentaliyth, are inevitable in the emergence of any discipline and are useful to the extent that these processes do not become so symmetrical that they induced rigidity in thinking. Therapists must be able to act unconstrictingly; However, they must also take responsibility for their actions. Believing too strongly in either strategizing or nonintervening in the therapeutic process can be constraining to say the least. This article will offer a new position called “irreverence” in the therapeutic process of systemic therapy.

This paper is a preliminary contribution to the potentially insidious problem of the referring person in family therapy. I n (yur experience, our failure to examine this problem according to the systemic epistemology was the root of several unsuccessful therapies. A description of those who, most often, are the referring persons to be suspected of hawing become homeostatic members of the family i s given. We also present sketches of the behavior we most often observe in families which are maintaining a homeostatic bond with the referring person. Lastly, we explain and give exumples of the tactics &wised by our team to reveal and resolve this problem.' *Translated from Italian

This article presents a therapeutic tactic called ritualized prescription which is specifically aimed at breaking up those behaviors through which each parent disqualifies and sabotages the initiatives and directions of the other parent in his relation with the children. On the fundamental principle of the conceptual systemic model it is evidenced how this prescription, even in cases when it is not followed, inevitably supplies the therapists with relevant information for the understanding of the family's functioning. With families following the prescription, fast and satisfying changes are observed.

This article presents the results of a pilot study carried out on families of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (high‐frequency users of psychiatric services) using a standardized version of systemic family intervention based on the Milan Approach (‘Circular Interview’). We used expressed emotion (EE) to compare and assess two homogeneous samples of families, a treatment group (n = 10) and a control group (n = 8). We found that families participating in circular interviews showed a reduction in criticism, while 30% of their members with a diagnosis of schizophrenia relapsed. Families not receiving treatment showed no changes in EE levels, while 62.5% of their members with a diagnosis of schizophrenia relapsed. Although the difference in relapse rates is not statistically significant, these results justify further studies on the use of nondirective systemic intervention with families of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

No abstract

No abstract