Peggy Sax - A Conversation

A Conversation Between Lynn Hoffman, Peggy Sax and her Study Group Hi Lynn, It feels great to be back in conversation. I am busy getting my study group ready for a new year. Thanks for the further reflection for Kevin. I just posted it on the study group forum. And now I want to share a few more reflections with you. These are responses from study group members who read your article/book chapter, "The art of withness." Here is how I introduced the topic: Lynn is one of my first mentors in collaborative approaches to family therapy. I highly recommend her book, "Family Therapy: An intimate history." Lynn worked with many of the masters in family therapy before settling into the world of conversational/dialogic therapies with colleagues Harry Goolishian, Harlene Anderson and Tom Andersen. Lynn embraced reflecting teamwork back in the late 1980s, just after Tom Andersen's article first appeared. Some of you have also read about Lynn's intrigue with the rhizome metaphor. Lynn is a scholar. I think I first heard her speak about the word of Bahktin, Wittgenstein and Lyotard from Lynn. And she knows more about Gregory Bateson than anyone I know. While Michael White expressed joy in reading Foucault, Lynn Hoffman describes being thrilled reading Bateson! I love how Lynn brings some of that learning into this article - searching out an alternative logic that takes in the truths of metaphors, a Creatural grammar, exploring the hidden language known to animals, mad people and artists, and learning what we can about the emotional brain. Lynn gives us many gift in this article- distilled from over 80 years of living and learning. She states three pilars of wisdom: not knowing, the reflecting team, and witnessing processes....Then if that wasn't enough, Lynn brings in the contributions of John Shotter - as "in-house philosopher", "embodied knowing," making dialogic communication relevant to relational therapies, introducing new possibilities beyond social constructionism. Can we go beyond the heady language of social constructionism's linguistic systems, to talk about "withness practices without rank?" Lynn uses so many catchy phrases of Shotter's - my favorite is her reference to his description of the shift from "aboutness thinking" to "withness" thinking, which she illustrates through a Tom Andersen story. And a quote from Tom Andersen who was tired of speaking about therapies, and instead wanted to talk about human art, "the art to participate in bonds with others."Lightbulbs go off for me when I read that. See what you think. Of course I love reading Lynn's thoughts about rhizomes. Lynn is totally enamoured with the rhizome metaphor. Lynn chronicles so many philosophical contributions, I started to feel a bit

breathless that is until she brings it all home with her description of the big tent. Can conversational therapies become "the big new tent:" with room for all of us? How do you think her images fit with those of narrative practice? Can you envision a big enough tent to hold these various traditions? If you could be in conversation with Lynn, what might you want to say or ask? I will be happy to share any of your reflections and questions with Lynn. In my eyes, Lynn is the best kind of scholar -always aiming to translate ideas into practice. Lynn, I will now list (and number) the responses: 1) Here is a response from dear Sarah Hughes (who used to sell books with Michael). Good morning, I finally sat down with a cup of tea and Lynn. What a joyful way to spend my morning! I love her colourful use of words and images. I feel full of that brightness she talked about. There are so many ideas that caught my attention and I would love to ask Lynn and all of you for your thoughts so we can build the kind of conversations and withness without rank that she was talking about. First of all, I was thinking about my MFT program as it is structured that we start with dialogic ideas in our first semester. We read Anderson and Goolishan, Andersen, Rober, Seikkula, Weingarten...I thought this was wonderful as it for me really added to my narrative ideas and enriched my thinking. I made room in my tent for these voices. But the other students in the class who came from psychology or social work backgrounds found this reading really hard as they felt that they really did not know what they were doing on any level. They had no structure at all to ground themselves in that "withness" philosophy. They became very excited when we moved through to solution oriented approaches and narrative as they could then have some practices to work with from the stance of not knowing. What do you think of this? Could one work from a dialogic/conversational approach if they had no other structures/techniques/models/approaches behind them? Do we need a model? Is this a model? How would you organize a family therapy program - where would you start? The other part of this paper that really touched me and lit up my neurons in very bright ways was the ideas about body. That is really where my passion is right now as I have been working on my thesis (well major paper) that is based on Michael's ideas of responding to trauma but integrating in ideas of somatic therapies and neurobiology. To me in adds a depth that I find so crucial with trauma work as I can't separate out the stories from the physical sensations, responses, they are all intertwined. I also connect these ideas to the power of connecting with others bodies and stories in witnessing

processes. I won't go on about this but this is definitely my "professional project" right now and I get very excited.... More questions for Lynn and all of us: Empathy - I would love to have a conversation about this idea as I find it so interesting. How do you define empathy? How do you find it helpful and limiting? Michael was always so careful to explain the difference between empathy and resonance. Do you find this an important distinction? How do we make sure that our empathy is in the spirit of "withness" and not "aboutness"? Three Pillars - Why is reflecting a separate pillar from witnessing? What are the differences? What is it about the reflecting process that stands alone without the idea of others witnessing? I saw Tom Andersen do this but I can't quite explain it and would like to know more. Seikkula - have others read his work? I love his ideas and in particular how he talks about love in therapy as part of this withness. OK I look forward to any thoughts on any pieces of my ramblings or other responses to Lynn's ideas! Sarah Reflection #2: From Bonnie Miller: Wow, Sarah - I feel like I am trailing behind you on my tricycle while you pedal off on a European racer! I read the article after reading your post- thank you for the boost... I responded to Lynn's words about body and gesture with a memory- I remember asking a friend if he had something he wanted to say about how I was painting a wall, once - and his surprised reaction- how did I know? (he was trying so hard to respectfully withhold his comments...) it seems to me that this is exactly what we do as therapists- attending and tuning into body language, moments of transport, the things that are said during silences, if we are able to stay attentive and not be distracted by our own professional anxiety. Relaxing into things is a difficult practice, it seems to me. You ask about a conversational/dialogical approach without a model- and it seems to me that we are socially very ill-equipped for conversation especially conversation without rank... what passes for conversation seems most often like taking turns speaking, more than responding to one other’s thoughts and feelings. More and more I am thinking that models and structures exist for the comfort of the therapist, more than the comfort of the client. Climbing on monkey bars instead of swinging from ropes...

If we were trained to have conversations- what would be the skills and practices? It becomes very mystical in my mind- and I think about Picasso mastery first, and setting aside all of that to practice, after. I will chew on your question about the distinction between reflecting and witnessing- an interesting question... and good luck with your paper - your enthusiasm and interest comes across, even in your brief post! Bonnie Reflection #3) From Kevin Nielsen Wow, there is so much to say here. I feel excited and want to respond. As often happens, and this seems to be one occasion, I feel constrained by time. I only have a few moments, though I would like to give this a more thoughtful response. Anyway, I too was drawn to Lynn's references to body. I find this fascinating and intriguing on so many levels. On a personal level, I have found such richness, mystery, beauty and fascination by delving into the body, becoming embodied. I love dance, contact improvisation, ecstatic dance and other means of conscious, sensory, movement expressions. I find my body and parts of my body saying things that are different than what my mind says. And it’s a thrilling ride trying to tie ideas, postmodern concepts, sensory experiences, and language into some kind of coherence. I really appreciated Lynn's "three pillars of wisdom," especially the "not knowing." What a pregnant, important place to be. I loved this quote, which is taken from Shotter: "Witness thinking is a dynamic form of reflective interaction that involves coming into contact with another's living being, with their utterances, with their bodily expressions, with their words, their works." Rereading the previous posts, I am drawn to connections between body, memory and truama. Sarah, at some point I would love to hear more of your "professional project" and how you integrate somatic therapies and neurobiology. This is such a rich terrain. I plan to look up Seikkula. Bonnie, I am mulling over what you said about being trained in conversation and what skills and practices would we need. What comes to mind is more "now knowing," allowing the conversation to move to unknown territories. I must log off for now. More to come later. Thank you. Kevin (further from Kevin) In my rush to write a post, I realized I made a few mistakes, (or maybe not) such as "now knowing" instead of "not knowing." Interesting. "Now knowing" seems more like the body knowing, in the present, immediate, sensory. This

kind of knowing also can be "not knowing." If I look back and interpret my experience or anticipate something with my concepts, I am doing something different than being with what is. I enjoyed reading the discussion of "dialogicality" and "withness practices." There is something about this that makes me think of Martin Buber's I-Thou relationships. I was intrigued reading how Tom Andersen asked the woman where in her body pain was located and if it could talk what would it say. The voice had something to say, and I am sure the answer would have been different if he would have asked (her mind?) directly. This raises all sorts of interesting questions about self, identity, fragmentation, parts. Who are we really? I was also taken by the idea of creating a common language and the work of Seikkula. I would love to see this form of Open Dialogue in action. Is this possible? What a great idea, the thought of conversing with clients by "giving up the idea of primarily having control over things and, instead, jumping into the same river or rapids." I wonder what that would look like for me in my addictions work. I am inspired by the thought of social discourses counteracting one another. I am also left pondering the merit of not as much alleviating symptoms as preventing chronicity. Much to consider here *** A client just cancelled and I have some time to write. Here are some more thoughts. At some point, and it was after reading the article, I realized that its title was "the art of withness" and not "the art of witness. It's a bad habit, to see what we expect to see, to respond anticipating a pattern. Anyway, I was thinking of your question Peggy about what to ask Lynn. I am not well versed in family therapies, but I am curious how dialogical, conversational therapies extend/differ/are distinct from narrative approaches. Does dialogical therapy see itself as operating without a model, structure, or techniques behind it? What metaphor(s) best describe this shift? Rhizome? I am also mulling over the distinction between empathy and resonance. I recall reading an article by David Epston that introduced the idea of coinvestigation or co-researching a problem instead of empathizing with it. I think of resonance as being much more body-based. If I resonate with something, a person, a situation, I believe I am describing how I am pulled, pushed and affected on a sensing felt level to what is happening. Within my experiences with dance and movement, I often experience that sense of moving spatially and directionally that is beyond cognition. I move and go, my body is intelligent and adapts. I feel. And the experience seems to be as if I am part of something bigger. And when I look back, and even while "in it," something extraordinary often happens. In a very different context, something similar happens when we are with clients and resonate with their problems. I feel something in my body. Their gestures affect me as does my

body language, facial expressions affect them. It's challenging to put this in words. I wonder if resonance is related to intuition, or better yet, related to something shared in common. One usage of resonance is of course electromagnetic, and it conjures up ideas of electrical fields. Perhaps resonance in the sense of being with clients is looking at that common field we share with clients. Call it a social field or linguistic field--we are both affected and moved, though in different ways. Maybe that is the common river Lynn was referring to. #4: Peggy I'm writing from a Montreal hotel room, just back from the early morning walk around sleeping city streets and parks, in search for a cup of coffee (where are those 24 hr "Second Cup" shops when you need them?). I gave a workshop here yesterday and today I will be heading home. I brought my bike so I hope to stop somewhere en route for a cycle in this spectacular (and long awaited) spring weather. ANYWAY...I have loved reading this exchange between Sarah, Bonnie and Kevin. I wish we were all in the same room or even better ,sitting across the table over a leisurely meal (with room for anyone else who wants to join us). There are so many things I want to say! I wish Lynn Hoffman could be here with us. As soon as she gets her new email address, I will send her a digest of your reflections and questions. I really believe this will greatly enlighten her day. And I want so much to hear her voice in this conversation. Kevin, I really appreciate your ponderings about resonance, the mind/body connection, the body's intelligence and adaptability, awareness of being part of something bigger- and the relevance to therapeutic conversations. I have been sitting here pondering your words. I think you are more articulate than you think. And I "resonate" with your excitement. It is contagious! Quote "If I resonate with something, a person, a situation, I believe I am describing how I am pulled, pushed and affected on a sensing felt level to what is happening. Within my experiences with dance and movement, I often experience that sense of moving spatially and directionally that is beyond cognition." The older I get, the more aware I too become of the mind/body connection. I too believe this is connected to what Lynn calls "the underground river" Signs of "resonance" or "non-resonance" (if that is a word - what do you call that experience when your body gives the "NO" response...?) happen frequently in our bodies, whether or not we choose to listen to them. Maybe this is like synchronicity? When I slow down and listen, a lot seems to reveal itself. One of our greatest challenges in the 21st century seems to be how to slow down

to listen...not only in therapy sessions, but in everyday life. Yet I am often awed by how that underground river seems to patiently wait... like the 24 hr local coffee shop. It is always open and ready for business. And surprisingly forgiving… most of the time... I do worry about long-term effects of fatigue... illness...and of course, the inevitability of time running out/ mortality. (Lately, I am carrying with me a heightened sense that life is precious and shortlived.) We know there is no such thing as neutrality. When people are consulting with us (or as Andre recently attributed to Michael, "When we consult with people about their lives"), there are so many (infinite?) ways we can respond. Where do we shine our light/orient our questions? What themes stand out to us? What guides the choices we make? Michael gave us maps to orient these journeys, emphasizing along the way that these maps should never be mistaken as the destination. Some people (dialogic/collaborative conversationalists in particular) have experienced the narrative maps as being too restrictive and even policing. In my experience, that kind of narrative constraint is indeed a risk - we have probably all seen or heard of "bad" narrative therapy just like any other approach, when the questions seem too wooden or contrived. I wonder if dance might be another apt metaphor as an alternative to maps. As a dancer, you still need to lots of practice and the particular guidelines, right? How else does that "dance" metaphor fit - or not? I am thinking about how when couples dance, one person leads yet both partners need each other/co-create. What about in other kinds of dance? I too feel something in my body when I resonate with others' problems. And I do believe this experience is related to intuition. And I like the metaphor of being in each other's social or linguistic (aka electromagnetic) fields. This reminds me of how careful Michael was to speak about "intuitive skills" instead of "intuition." He was suspicious of the mystical and naturalistic explanations, and instead believed wholeheartedly in rigorously fine-tuning those skills. However, I also believe he could not see or at least chose not to articulate some of the "felt" experience that his presence generated. Twice I heard Salvador Minuchin question Michael about what remained unnamed in his conversations with people (in addition to the maps). I have an hour audio tape of one of those conversations (from the Evolution of Psychotherapy). If there is interest, I would be happy to put this in the media library. I would enjoy listening to it together. Kevin you asked, "how dialogical, conversational therapies extend/differ/are distinct from narrative approaches. Does dialogical therapy see itself as operating without a model, structure, or techniques behind it? What metaphor(s) best describe this shift? Rhizome?" Wow. This is a very good question. You put your finger on a big controversial topic - some people believe it is possible to straddle both collaborative inquiry and narrative practice. Others think you have to choose. My hope is that we can further explore the territory shared by collaborative conversations/ narrative approaches, while also drawing forth some of the distinctions. Do you have

any suggestions about how we might go about doing that? Certainly Lynn is very keen these days on the rhizome metaphor. Harlene Anderson has come good materials http://www.harleneanderson.org/Pages/aboutha.htmI really like her book, Conversation, Language and Possibilities: A Postmodern Approach to Therapy. Sarah and Bonnie - I share your sentiments about models. I don't think being eclectic works very well. It really helps to a framework to hang practices on, and that keeps us accountable to something. Yet I have come to a similar conclusion to Bonnie – Quote "More and more I am thinking that models and structures exist for the comfort of the therapist, more than the comfort of the client. Climbing on monkey bars instead of swing from ropes..." I heard someone (Peter, my first supervisor) use the analogy of "imprinting" that psychological phenomenon associated with ducks, where an animal or person learns something at a particular time, which then becomes formative. Peter said this in a conversation when he acknowledged that for whatever reasons, he "imprinted" with Tom Andersen which can be traced back in the late 80s/early 1990s. Tom Andersen and the reflecting team turned my work/thinking around, as did solution-focused ideas/practices... yet I think narrative therapy is where my real professional "imprinting" came. Lynn talks about how much narrative has influenced her thinking - yet I collabortive conversations and "the art of withness" is central to her approach. Sarah, your "professional project" sounds fantastic and very intriguing. I too would love to hear more about your passion for integrating somatic therapies, neurobiology and narrative approaches in working with trauma. Please think of using this space and us as a place to hatch some of these ideas. I believe your thinking is cutting edge, and exactly what is needed. Thank you for starting me off in such a stimulating way! I have lots to contemplate. Peggy ps. I'm back from a walk and still contemplating the territory shared by collaborative and narrative approaches. I found this link on Harlene Anderson's website to a brief paper (2 pager) on "Postmodern/social construction Assumptions: Invitations for Collaborative Practices," which she posted in Jan 09. http://www.harleneanderson.org/Pages/PostmodernCollaborativePractices.ht

m She lists and briefly describes six interrelated assumptions and the invitations that each presents for our practices: Maintaining skepticism Avoiding the risks of generalization Knowledge as an interactive social process Privileging local knowledge Language as a creative social process Knowledge and language as transforming She then gives tips for collaboration It will just take a few minutes to read this. I am most interested in your thoughts about how this approach dovetails with narrative practice. What similarities and distinctions draw your attention? Other questions and ponderings? Peggy #5: Bonnie Miller Hello PeggyI enjoyed this Harlene Anderson article- it is brief, but dense... and to me it seems to cover very similar principles to narrative practices- particularly the questioning of words, the use of language, the therapist 'posture'- the sense of humility and awareness I love this tip: "Pay attention to the clients words and do not make assumptions about their non-words" Non-words! That is wonderful. In another discussion group we came up with the idea of 'double questioning' as well as 'double listening'- being curious and attentive to what the person is saying; and also, being curious and questioning of what might be forming in our own headsHaving said that about therapist posture- I wonder- MW talks about 'decentered and influential'- and I suppose there are degrees of influenceour influences shape the influence we exert- (starts to sound like a tongue twister) I also really, really like this notion of knowledge as an interactive social

process-language as a living activity - well, I like it, and find it scary at the same timeIt alerts me to the power of my own thinking- as I ponder the stories of my clients- what do I emphasize in my own head? What is the story, theory, idea that I am creating about them, through this emphasis. And how do I set this aside, or use it when we next meet? Language is internal as well as externalbut who are we conversing with in our mental dialogues? Which brings me back to maintaining skepticism, and double questioning... whew. #6: Naomi Hi Bonnie, I was also drawn to the statement in Harlene's article Quote "Pay attention to the clients words and do not make assumptions about their non-words" This quote also spoke to me about Michael White's idea of the absent but implicit; that people's "non-words" may be indicative of them making discernments about what they say, as well as what they don't say, and that these discernments might say something about what is important to them. But as you say, if we make assumptions about this, not only are we centering ourselves as therapists, we are missing out on an opportunity to be transparent about what we notice and to ask about the meaning that the non-words have for them (or inquiring about what might be absent but implied)... This gets me thinking about the closing down effects of making assumptions, and conversely, the possibilities opened up when we remain curious. I think if I am honest that I probably make thousands of assumptions in conversations every day without even realizing it... Like you say Bonnie what gets emphasized in our own heads? And what discernments do we make in what lines of inquiry we choose to follow? Oh dear, I still have more to say but my clients have just arrived... Naomi #7: Bonnie Miller Hey NaomiI look forward to reading what else you have to say!

I want to expand a little bit- not making assumptions about their non-words leads to asking questions about their non-words... right? I love practicing transparently- letting my 'conversational partner' know that I am thinking a few different things, and asking which they prefer to talk about- the other day I had a conversation like that and the time flew by- the young woman I was speaking with just took the lead in shaping our talk and it felt like we were walking without backpacks. I still felt influential- but she was definitely the guide. I want to comment on Kevin's suggestion that 'resonance' might be a kind of response to the other person's 'field'...and the idea of danceIn my face-to-face study group we were discussing the use of reflecting teams, and this idea of 'resonance' came up - we talked about how this is such an embodied term, and wondered about the degrees of embodiment each of us has, at any given time. It seems to me that this is one of those taken for granted things- that we are 'in our bodies'- and have words and awareness of our physical selves. For myself, I am noticing that I am very 'head-centered'- words, ideas, analysis these are my areas of comfort. I am not a dancer, am not physically active at this point in my life. Peggy, when we met and you were talking about cycling, it made me very aware of this inactivity in my life - since then I have been making efforts to do more, and out of doors- but it seems to me that the embodied aspect of working with people is almost entirely ignored in our training and practices. How do we learn to tune into our physical responses when this is never considered as a skill for development? And if it was considered a skill for development, then what might we suggest as 'training'? Do folks agree? or is it just me? Bonnie Lynn, it's me - Peggy - again. I hope you enjoy reading this reflections. Any responses are most welcome - without expectations. The study group may not be a money maker, but I am falling in love with everyone in it! Can you understand why? love, Peggy