Sociopolitical Activist or Conversational Partner? Distinguishing the Position of the Therapist in Narrative and Collaborative Therapies

Abstract

In this article, we explore the similarities and differences of two contemporary family therapy approaches: narrative and collaborative therapies. These therapies are contrasted by describing positioning of the narrative practitioner as sociopolitical activist and the collaborative practitioner as conversational partner. The article begins with a brief overview of the two therapies. Subsequently, we outline their epistemological genealogies and the practice similarities that arise from the theoretical assumptions underpinning these therapies. The remainder of the article addresses the theoretical and therapeutic differences in narrative and collaborative approaches reflected in the positioning of therapist as either sociopolitical activist or conversational partner. While narrative and collaborative approaches share more similarities than differences in relation to their emphasis on the constitutive characteristics of language, focus on sociorelational contexts, and critique of singular objective truths, prominence is given to the starker contrasts in narrative and collaborative understandings of politics, power, dialogue, and discourse. It is proposed that by outlining some provocative contrasts between narrative and collaborative approaches, new conversations and generative practices will emerge in the therapy room.

What is narrative therapy and what is it not? The usefulness of Q methodology to explore accounts of White and Epston's (1990) approach to narrative therapy

“…The most infl uential approaches using a narrative metaphor have been Anderson and Goolishian's (1992) 'collaborative language systems therapy' and White and Epston's (1990) narrative therapy. These two approaches are often confused and confl ated (Monk & Gehart, 2003). Sometimes, solution-focused therapy (de Shazer, 1982) is included along with these two approaches under the broad umbrella of 'post-modern social constructionist therapies' (Anderson, 2003).…”

Therapist Positioning and Power in Discursive Therapies: A Comparative Analysis

“…The primary agenda of narrative therapists is to empower 5 clients and to facilitate their liberation from dominant cultural stories (Monk and Gehart 2003;White 1991;White and Epston 1990). Therapists are ''sociopolitical activists'' (Monk and Gehart 2003) who acknowledge clients' resources and invite clients to join them in the battle against the problem-saturated story (Monk 1997).…”

“…While discursive therapists have had plenty to say about therapist power, little effort has been made to systematically compare and contrast their perspectives (exceptions, Flaskas 2002;Gibney 1996;Guilfoyle 2003;Monk and Gehart 2003). The most notable of the existent comparisons are Monk and Gehart's (2003) discussion of the epistemological stances of narrative and collaborative therapists, and Guilfoyle's (2003) discussion of post-structural, rhetorical, and dialogical ideas and their application to the practice of collaborative and narrative therapies.…”

“…The most notable of the existent comparisons are Monk and Gehart's (2003) discussion of the epistemological stances of narrative and collaborative therapists, and Guilfoyle's (2003) discussion of post-structural, rhetorical, and dialogical ideas and their application to the practice of collaborative and narrative therapies. Most of these critiques focus on specific issues pertaining to therapist positioning and power.…”

Exploring Master Therapists’ Use of Power in Conversation

“…This requires certain levels of ''consciousness'' in which the therapist is aware and appreciative of local politics in relationships (White & Epston, 1990). As the problem is co-defined in an egalitarian manner by both therapist and family, the therapist externalizes the problem from the individual family member in order to help the family be aware of cultural subjugations (Monk & Gehart, 2003).…”