Narrative Practice Key Learnings: Externalizing Conversations

As I continue to develop an understanding of the techniques of narrative practice, one of the foundational components White (2007) utilizes is externalizing conversations.  One of the phrases I have often heard associated with White is “the problem is the problem.”  This concept is based on the rationale that people believe their problems are internal to the self/others – people view individuals as the source of the problem.  White sees this as sinking the person further into their problem.

Externalization thus seeks to undo the attachment of the problem to the individual by objectifying the problem and separating the identity from the problem.  Thus, the problem is not a representation of the “truth” associated with an individual’s identity.  Rather, the problem is a separate entity with a variety of options that can be generated to successfully resolve it.

From my understanding of White’s methodology, the first task a practitioner has is to aid the individual in generating an externalized description of the problem.  Scenarios similar to the event(s) being externalized can help guide the descriptive process – the key is to allow the client to author an externalized problem that fits with their phenomenological reality.  Thus, this is a very individualized process.  As this personally-relevant description unfolds, the practitioner and client will begin considering the counter-plots that go against the problem, along with how the externalized problem impacts the individual’s life.  The goal of exploring impacts is to develop a rich description of those impacts.  There appears to be an opportunity here to explore how the externalized problem stands in the way between the individual in their current position and their preferred self.

To develop an externalizing conversation, the conversation begins with clients typically seeing the problem as a reflection of their identity (or the identity of others).  Moving away from “truths” of identity weakens the concept of identity as the problem.  White notes that many of the “truths” clients encounter are culturally constructed.  White draws from several of Michael Foucault’s concepts such as:

• Dividing practices: People divided through an ascription or assignment of their identity.
• The objectification of bodies: This is done through medicalization, location, and classification of disorders of the body.
•  Normalizing Judgement:  This a form of social control that incites people to measure their self-worth and the worth of others through how their actions/thoughts fit with societal norms or the developments constructed in professional disciplines.

The impacts of these concepts are argued as an individual’s perceptions of feeling “disordered,” “dysfunctional,” “incompetent,” & “inadequate” within their dominant culture.  White believes that when people are not restricted to the “truths” that emerge from these perceptions, new options to address the predicaments can be explored.

White takes the position that separation of identity from the problem does not relinquish responsibility.  Instead, he believes it makes it easier for the individual to take responsibility.  The underlying logic is that a clearly-defined relationship with the problem provides more available ways to revise the relationship with the problem.

Externalizing is viewed as a process in which people are able to unravel the negative conclusions between identity and the problem.  This begins with an exploration of how the problem shapes or influences the individual’s life.  This is inherently client-centred as it individually explores the power relationships the individual has been subjected to, rather than an assumption that the client holds a belligerent role with the problem.  The option to explore how the problem impacts multiple facets of their life also de-centres the client as the source of the problem – maintaining externalization of the problem, and separation of the identity from the problem.  The practitioner should try and give the client opportunity to challenge the negative conclusion of their identity through collaborative inquiry – allowing the client to uncover more positive conclusions about themselves.

White describes collaborative inquiry as the interviewer being in a position similar to that of an investigative reporter.  The interviewer wants to develop an exposé – such as uncovering corruption associated with power and privilege.  The goal is not to problem-solve, but partake in “cool” engagement that deconstructs the following:

• The “character” of the problem
• The problem’s operations and activities
• The purposes of the problem’s operations and activities

The practitioner also wants to uncover the ways the problem achieves power or dominance over the individual and consequentially impacts the individual’s life.  As the impacts of the problem over the individual’s life unfold, an opportunity to identify their own life purpose(s) and subsequent values/beliefs can arise to contradict the agenda of the externalized problem.

One of the key considerations White brings up is that there needs to be space for a wide range of experiences to be expressed.  This is especially the case for experiences that have not been revealed in the past.  This is about creating new connections in the relationship between the externalized problem and the individual.

As the externalization inquiry process finishes, metaphors can that can characterize the individual’s relationship with the problem that can be utilized.  These metaphors need to be customized to fit with the values and aspirations of the client’s ideal self.  White makes a special note to be cautious of the meaning systems associated with the metaphor.  For example, battle metaphors that normalize violence of patriarchy may have consequences if the client does not actualize their goals, or reinforce or legitimize oppressive thoughts/feelings/beliefs.  It is always vital for the practitioner to be cognizant of those considerations.

Along the same lines, we do not want to disqualify diversity in culture by making references to ways of living that only fit within dominant discourse.  When culturally relevant, integrating culturally relevant other ways of knowing may provide opportunities to engage in anti-oppressive or anti-imperial practice.

A question I was left with is what considerations should be made when deciding on a metaphor that is relevant to the client.  White makes several suggestions.  First is that metaphors are taken from discourses to invoke understandings of life or identity.  Selecting the discourses relevant to the client would thus be the first consideration.  The second consideration is that the metaphor would influence the actions of the individual to work towards a resolution of their problem(s).  The third is that we do not need to be dependent on a single metaphor to convey understandings – combinations and revisions of metaphors as new information emerges is a component of maintaining relevance to the client’s phenomenological reality.  The fourth suggestion is that battle/fight metaphors may be useful when introduced by the client, rather than the practitioner.  Even then, however, other metaphors may be able to become introduced at a later point in time.

Another consideration White raises when considering the problem is “totalizing” it – whereby the problem is defined in terms that are completely negative.  This can be construed as either/or thinking, as we may be missing components of the “problem” that the individual gives value to, or are sustaining for the individual.

Statement of Inquiry: 4 Categories

Inquiry 1: Particular Experience-near definition of the problem

The practitioner will want to negotiate with the individual a definition of the predicament/problem that has brought them to seek services.  The problem then needs to be richly described through the externalization process.  Developing an “experience-near” definition means that the description is based on the client’s understanding of events.  Developing the perspective around the client’s experience is thus a very client-centred concept.  One of the suggestions White offers in this stage is a personification of the problem.  This arguably allows for an easier application of metaphors while also reducing the use of jargon/diagnosis within the experience-near depiction.  This may provide an opportunity to enhance client engagement.

Inquiry 2: Mapping the Effects of the Problem

At this point, the practitioner can begin to interview the individual and help them develop a rich understanding of the effects and influence the problem(s) has/have on various domains of the individual’s life.  This includes the primary consequences of the problem’s activities and operations.  What we want to do at this point is to allow the externalizing conversations to dispossess the truth status the problem has on the individual’s identity

Inquiry 3: Evaluating the Effects of the Problem’s Activities

Here is where we want to support the client as they evaluate the problem’s operations and activities, and its principal impacts on the individual’s life.  This provides an opportunity for the individual to explore how the developments of the problem influence their life.

This approach is often new to individuals, so it is good practice to first summarize the impacts of the problem from information gathered under inquiry 2.  Referred to as “editorials,” they allow the client to have something to reflect on in this stage.  White refers to this as a reflecting surface.  The reflecting surface allows the individual to speak about their experiences concerning the problem.

If multiple individuals are attending the session together, it is also good practice to allow for the multiple individuals to become aware of each other’s perceptions around the problem, and what they are struggling with.  The aim is to develop a mutual understanding of the experiences and their consequences.

In this stage, we do not want to assume the effects the problem has on the individual.  The practitioner wants to have some degree of curiosity in the client’s perception of what the externalized problem contributes and/or takes from the individual’s life.  What would it be like without the problem?  What would it be like if the problem did not exist? Why are things as they are now (not) okay?

Inquiry 4: Justifying the evaluation

White’s interesting take in this section is the use of “why” questions that are typically avoided in counselling.  White’s position is that proper use of why questions develop an individual’s concepts around life, and to develop positive identity conclusions (develop concepts of living and intentional understandings of life).

The key consideration is that why questions are not framed around a moral judgement question.  The question needs to give the individual a voice to develop concepts of living or an intentional understanding of their life (such as their purpose, goals, commitments, quests, etc).  My interpretation is thus that you are not asking for a justification per se, but rather seeking to understand the relationship between two ideas.  So, I would frame it as “why does ‘x’ lead/relate to ‘y’?”

Another piece that emerged in inquiry 4 was that the practitioner does not need to challenge negative conclusions.  Rather, they would partake in collaborative inquiry to explore the conclusions further.  Once the inquiry leads to intentional understandings, the client would be ready for re-authoring.  Once we reach this point, we can begin to uncover the individual’s values and skills that can be utilized in the reauthoring process.

Final Thoughts

A few more pieces on “why” questions came to mind, and I feel are noteworthy in venturing into that new territory.  First is that White views “why” questions as a means to challenge essentialist conceptualizations of individuals – thus the “why” is meant to promote a more detailed description of the problem and its relation with the individual to counter negative conclusions.  As these descriptions are drawn out, we want to highlight the differentiation between the individual and the problem – providing space to see what the differentiation says about the individual and their values.

White makes several mentions of when clients say “I don’t know.”  Others can be invited in this situation to explore their guess on what the “why” could be.  This inadvertently allows the client to distinguish their reality from the reality of others.  This may prove quite useful in narrative-based groups and work with families, where multiple perspectives converge.

References

White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY; W. W. Norton & Company