From the plenary address given by Johnella Bird at the Narrative Therapy and Community Work Conference in Chicago USA, August 2003 - Part Only

Challenging Orthodoxy
Writer Johnella Bird

How is it that the innovative practices of yesterday become the orthodoxy of today?

How do we contribute to the innovative practices of today becoming the orthodoxy of tomorrow?

In this presentation I will articulate the position I take in relationship to the development of orthodoxy. If this position is different to the one you believe in, please attempt to place the ideas I hold, alongside the ideas which you hold. I am stating this because I have found that whenever differences are articulated, people can experience this difference as oppositional. This isn’t the intention I hold. Whenever difference is constructed as an opposition to something, this is the breeding ground for orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is constructed whenever belonging is contingent on sameness. I ask you to listen to this presentation while holding the knowledge that I speak from a particular belonging place. The opportunity to speak to you all today carries with it a responsibility. This responsibility which I carry, is to use this time to make a difference. You might wonder, ‘What sort of difference?’ The difference is suggested in the title of this plenary, 'Challenging Orthodoxy’. Since 1990, I have consistently argued for creating innovation and fluidity by resisting the temptation to create therapies or models. I believe those therapeutic approaches which draw on post-structuralist ideas, while also generating a ‘post-modern’ therapy or model are creating an inherent contradiction. Models come into existence through textual means. The textual definitions of the significant ideas and technical application of these ideas forms the bones of what a therapy is and what it is not. Once the bones of a therapy are set, established, defined, textually referenced and re-referenced, how possible is it to discover through innovative therapeutic practice a difference or a change to the established metaphoric body? I believe the possibilities are extremely limited. This limitation occurs when the metaphoric representations of the therapeutic work which don’t adhere to the textually defined therapy are positioned as in opposition versus beside or simply different from the set or established therapy. Hence, the contradiction - multiplicity cannot and does not exist within the structural boundaries produced by ‘therapies’ or models. Instead of creating models of therapeutic processes, I prefer to emphasise the development of processes where discovery is privileged. In privileging discovery we are positioned to:

• negotiate and contextualise meaning across gender, culture, time, for example, respect
• remain sensitive to, and develop strategies for negotiating meaning within the power relation, for example, the silencing effect of the good intentions of the dominant group;
• experiment with processes which bring that which isn’t known into a known place;
• acknowledge the teachers who guide and influence the development of an individuals clinical work in preference to an acknowledgement of a detached therapeutic model which inherently privileges the textual representation of this ‘model’.

An analogy I have used for many years when teaching others is:

• The ideas and technical skills I have developed and use, resource me to travel with people. I never know the destination which we (therapist and client) will eventually arrive at. Even though I carry a knowledge of reaching many destinations with people.
• As we travel together, I carry the skills for navigating difficult terrain.
• I have some knowledge of the preparation and resources needed to embark on the journeying process.
• I carry the hope that as one path peters out another will become apparent to us.
• I believe the person I’m travelling with knows more about this journey than they appreciate and in the journeying they will discover what it is they now know.
• I believe this knowledge which they are discovering and creating in the present moment, is critical in determining the journey we take and the destination we reach.

Similarly I believe the therapeutic ideas and practices we use and discover and rediscover through the actual practice, are a travelling resource. A guide rather than a destination. How do we maintain this attitude? What are the structures which we can put in place to privilege travelling? I believe these questions need to be at the forefront of the critical review of all psychological/therapeutic work/community work theory and practice. This critical review process is a responsibility we must all be committed to if we are interested in both avoiding orthodoxy while taking up a social justice position. The discovery I have made over many years of practice, teaching and living is that the structures and metaphors which sustain and create dominance are being ongoingly reinvented for the benefit of the dominant cultural group. This reinvention is often performed through the co-option of the linguistic metaphors used to shape a social justice position. Through this plenary I hope to share with you the processes I use to reflect on these questions. I am going to begin by reviewing the implications of developing a Narrative therapy. In the introduction to the book, ‘The Heart’s Narrative’, (1, ppix) I articulate the position I hold in relation to the construction of a Narrative therapy by writing the following:

I have been frequently asked to define my therapeutic work and ideas using a model. I am loath to do this because I believe the development of therapeutic models is very dangerous. The danger lies in our desire for certainty. Within the professional classes certainty provides comfort, privilege, belonging and access to a commodity. The Narrative way of working has provided a challenge to those therapeutic models that adhere to fixed psychological truths. However the very construction of the term, ‘Narrative Model’ or therapy creates an environment of inclusion and exclusion. Instead of engaging with ideas and practices that are described as Narrative, there is a temptation to replicate certain templates of the ideas and practices, and this replication encourages imitation, together with definitiveness about what is and what is not an accurate representation of the model. The idea that ‘the Narrative model’ or therapy actually exists overshadows the existence of differences as practitioners attempt to engage reflexively with ideas and practices. It is ironic that our attempt to engage with the idea of ‘the model or therapy’ contradicts many of the presuppositions that underpin our engagement with the ideas and practices of what is called Narrative Therapy. I have struggled with defining the ideas that I use and the work that I do, under ‘the model or therapy’ umbrella. I feel a sense of colleagueship with people who call themselves Narrative Therapists because we share a passionate engagement with issues of justice and ethics.