Please note that the following handouts are subject to Copyright.

No. 1
The conventions of English language usage locate experiences within people (clients), e.g. 'I'm sad'. In this example the languaging practice ('I'm sad') acts to encourage the speaker and the listener to consider that sadness exists within the body of 'I'. Its static representation of experience has severe consequences for those people (clients) who are struggling with life experiences and circumstance. Conventional English language strategies create the conditions where the I is seen/experienced/ known as autonomous, self directed, singular and independent. Whenever we use the English language conventionally in clinical work we unwittingly support conversational processes that persistently subject people (clients) to 'self' and 'other' evaluation, categorisation and diagnosis.

A relational linguistic conversation shifts linguistically what has been/or is subjectified (i.e. attributes, ideas, feelings, experiences that are conceptualised as belonging to the person) to the status of an object in relationship to the person (client). This way of languaging acts to shift the focus from that of an individual self, to a self always in relationship.

This literal explanation of the relational conversation reduces its complexity. In engaging in this style of conversation we are living out or practising a philosophical belief, which is that the 'I' is never singular. The 'I' is known and experienced always in relationship.
- The Heart's Narrative, pp. 7

Back to Top

No. 2
The relational linguistic conversational style is experienced or felt rather than heard. Although we are speaking relationally and thus unconventionally we are utilising the language of everyday experience. People (clients) engage with the languaging of everyday experience while experiencing the linguistic space which is generative of a relational construct that inevitably builds a sense of hope and possibility. When we use relational externalising talk we imply through our use of the language that people (clients) are not totally the identified concern, feeling, life event, or diagnosis. This style of talk enables us to research the institutional and other supporters of the development of this concern, feeling, life events, or diagnosis. The relational externalising conversation thereby challenges the idea that the self is the sole regulator of life events and the meanings attributed to these life events.
- The Heart's Narrative, pp.8

Back to Top

No. 3
What Do I Focus On?
What we are listening for is critical in determining what is available to be re-searched within the therapeutic conversation.
I am drawn toward those parts of the conversation that seem to emotionally resonate for people (clients).
I am drawn toward significant life themes.
I am drawn toward key descriptive words or phrases that encapsulate or reflect lived experience.
I am drawn toward parts of the conversation that reflects people's relationship with resilience, abilities, strength.
I am drawn toward an exploration of the contextual environment of concerns and the contextual environment of those relationships, experiences, beliefs and practices that contradict the truth regimes that support the concerns.
I am drawn toward words and/or metaphors that imply movement. A movement toward or a movement away. The existence of movement inevitably implies change, thereby challenging belief in the static nature of all that constitutes pathology and normality.
- The Heart's Narrative, pp.14

Back to Top

No. 4
The relational linguistic enquiry requires us to engage with presence listening. Presence listening is a turning of all of our facilities toward the other/s. In the present moment we are totally available to engage with the therapeutic conversational process. This depth of listening involves our emotional, intellectual and physical selves. It is listening beyond the everyday. It is listening that defies Western cultural strategies of detachment. It is listening that positions us on the line between knowing and not knowing. In this listening place we make ourselves available to have
our life knowledges overturned, added to and/or confirmed.
- The Heart's Narrative, pp.14

Back to Top

No. 5
Words That Represent An Activity
Conventional use of English supports the strong adherence to polarities such as, success/failure, belongs/abandoned, forgiveness/resentment. These polarities function to categorise, measure and assess. Engaging with these polarities subjects us to self definitions that are finite and internalised, for example, 'I never belonged,' 'I can't forgive.' The 'I' is thus engaged as the arbiter of meaning and is understood as the self - determining, autonomous agent.

When people (clients) adhere to the dominant use of language which represents experiences as static, they become trapped in these oppositions. People (clients) respond to the experience of being trapped in a variety of ways, such depression, anger/rage, or compulsive behaviour. When we are able to use a process that moves past the polarities, we can experiment with ways
of using language that suggest movement, activity and context.

Here is an example where people are fixed in oppositions:
Jessie: Are you committed or not?
Tom: I don't know.
Jessie: Its easy just decide, yes or no?

Here are some questions that begin to move the conversation away from
oppositions:

• Do you think the commitment to talk together today is the beginning of building an understanding of commitment?
• How did you come to the commitment to talk together today ?
• Do you think building an understanding of commitment will help you both decide if you're willing to engage in the practice of commitment?

In the work with Jessie and Tom I would engage in an enquiry that:

• Locates the history of commitment ideas and practices between men and women;
• Examines the building of an understanding of the nature of these commitment ideas and practices;
• Negotiates the movement, from an understanding of commitment to developing the practice of commitment;
• Reflects on the commitment practices that Jessie and Tom have already engaged with;
• Reflects on a hierarchy of relationship commitment understandings, and practices in the community.
  - The Heart's Narrative, pps. 20-21

Back to Top

No. 6
Censorship structures of thinking are then exposed as the primary support of a particular regime of truth, where the meanings made of experiences are biased toward maintaining existing power relations. This power relation can leave abusers free from censure while tormenting and trapping others in the loud silences created by ideas of guilt, shame, fear and doubt.
Censorship structures of thinking are exposed when we utilise a relational externalising conversation that assists us to investigate the following:

• the supports, including the institutional supports that privilege one explanation of events over another;
• the benefits and disadvantages to people of holding particular ideas;
• and the effect that regimes of truth have on individuals sense of well-being and belonging.

In the exposure and exploration of one particular regime of truth, we inevitably engage with other regimes of truth. In these moments I choose to stand somewhere with people (clients), which requires that I know that I am choosing this set of ideas and practices over others. The ethic that supports me in this involves a commitment to continuously engage in practices that expose the ideas and practices of the power relations which inevitably act to include and exclude.
-The Heart's Narrative, pp.31

Back to Top

No. 7
Therapeutic/counselling work which has as its focus a relational linguistic enquiry process creates a climate of discovery rather than imposing meanings. When we know that particular discursive regimes can torment, oppress and silence people and that those discursive regimes are often carried and believed in by the same people (clients) who are oppressed by them, we can feel stuck between two positions. These positions are identified by two questions:

• Do I expose these ideas by presenting an alternative version? If I don't will I be supporting the ongoing oppression of these people (clients)?
• If I do expose these ideas, will people (clients) experience me as another agent of control?
  -The Heart's Narrative, pp.36

When knowledge is presented to people (clients) in a definitive, comprehensive logiocentric way, the following circumstances emerge:

• Knowledge, including alternative knowledges are represented as static, unified truths.
• There is pressure to comply to one truth over another.
• The knowledge is presented as comprehensive and people (clients) may not feel entitled or able to argue against it.
• The knowledge carriers including the alternative knowledge carriers, become the arbiters and gatekeepers of the one truth.
• To decline the other person's (therapist) particular regime of truth is to potentially lose the relationship. This has serious implications for the therapeutic relationship understanding.
• To accept the other person's (therapist) regime of truth is to potentially endanger other close relationships (partner, friendships, family members).
• The activity of accepting a particular regime of truth offered in this way threatens to capture the person as a convert.
• The activity of declining a particular regime of truth offered in this way threatens to alienate people from a member of the professional classes.
  The professional can then interpret the rejection as evidence of psychopathology and act on the person in accordance with this view point.
  -The Heart's Narrative, pp.36

Back to Top

No. 8
When I re-search the political, social and personal implications for people (clients) of certain modes of subjectivity I am hoping to:

• expose the strategies for implicating people in the practices and ideas that act to torment and oppress them;
• expose the ideas of the autonomous self which suggest individuals are totally responsible for the success/failure, health/illness, poverty/wealth in their life;
• expose the ideas and practices that act to marginalise one group while rewarding and supporting others;
• develop counter-knowledges and practices that can act to support people (clients) to ongoingly resist the prevailing knowledges and practices that oppress them;
• expose and critique the ethics that define what is legitimate and what is not.
  - The Heart's Narrative, pps.39-40

Back to Top

No. 9
Our listening can be limited by anxiety, fear, psychological theories, and our adherence to certainty about the meaning of experience. In order to reduce the possibility of limited listening, it may be helpful to consider these questions:

• How do I stay connected to what it is that I know while making that knowing available for extension or change?
• What practices do I engage in to extend the listening abilities I use in the work?
• What practices do I engage in to extend the questioning abilities I use in the work?
• How do I remind myself that there are knowledges other than the ones that I'm immersed in?
• Do I retain a sense of wonder in and curiosity about peoples' (clients) lived experience?
• If I answer yes, what supports me in this?
• If I answer no, what has eroded this and what do I need to do to rediscover it?
• How do I extend my repertoire of peoples' lived experience beyond my lived experience?
• What psychological theories do I take for granted as truths?
• What ideas support these psychological theories and who benefits from adherence to this theory?
• If I considered this theory as an incomplete or partial truth, what would I begin to wonder about in order to extend my knowing?
  - The Heart's Narrative, pp.45

Back to Top

No. 10
For many people (including children), words are and have been meagre representatives of their experience. In order for people's (clients') experiences to become available for reflection and review, we listen to all that reverberates in the room. We listen for and to the messages conveyed by the body, by feelings, expressions, thoughts, visions, dreams, the imagination, smells and we listen to what is said, partially said and not said. In that listening and from this place of partial knowing we call on all that we know about human existence while not assuming to intimately know the others' (clients') experience. Instead we bring into the conversation our wonderings.
- The Heart's Narrative, pp.29

Back to Top

No. 11
How do I decide what to focus on?
The therapy is supported by the intention to negotiate meaning versus assume meaning. This can be described as: "What does this mean?" The way we subsequently enquire acts to:

1. negotiates willingness
2. exposes intention - to the therapy/to the person
3. reflects and creates a recursive relationship between ideas and practices
4. creates a climate for negotiation of meaning of significant language.
5. positions us to discover theoretical ideas in and through the practice, i.e. the operation of power relations.
6. implies words are embodied by action
7. creates language outside of polarities.

Back to Top

No. 12
Reviewing the therapy or Negotiating the direction of the therapy
- Think about someone you're working with
- How would you think they might answer this?
- How would you?

• When you reflect on the therapy to date, what stands out to you about the process?
• Do you think the therapy is moving in the right direction?
• What have you taken from the therapy that has been helpful?
• Have your expectations of the therapy altered over time? What are your expectations now?
• What direction do you hope the therapy will move in over the next month?
• Is there anything that you want to know about the therapy that will help you to continue to engage with the therapy?
• Are there any factors outside of the therapy that you know are affecting the therapy?
• How will you know that the therapy is coming to an end? What will have changed so that ending can be considered?

When reviewing the therapy with a consultation to the therapy take the opportunity to research feelings, thoughts, ideas about the therapy.

Challenging the comfort of the therapeutic relationship - think of someone you're working with in the present/past.

• How do you think we would know that we were coming close to the end of the therapy?
• What changes would you expect before we consider the ending?
• How can we talk about the ending as an indication of success?
• How can I support you to hold onto the successes, given that the ending may result in a mix of feelings?
• When you think about the ending, what do you think and feel?
• Do you think the ending could provoke the memory of other endings?
• Is there anything you need to know from me in order to make this conversation easier?
  - The Heart’s Narrative, pps.347-348

Back to Top

No. 13
"Once we have articulated the therapeutic relationship understanding it is then available for ethical scrutiny. I am particularly interested in exposing the pivotal role that the therapeutic relationship understanding has in determining how we situate ourselves in the therapeutic relationship. The understandings we hold will either position us as the holders and conveyers of knowledge or as the negotiators of the possible meanings that can be made of experiences, feelings and ideas.

Interpretative therapies use people's (clients') experience of strong feelings within the therapeutic relationship as a knowledge resource which reflects early childhood relationships (i.e. parents). This reliance on interpretation inevitably results in therapists imposing meanings rather
than exploring the strategies for making sense of life events, experiences and strong feelings.

In moving away from interpretative therapies we situate ourselves on the boundary of knowing and not knowing. In this place we bring all of ourselves, however we position ourselves within the therapeutic relationship, in a unique way. Throughout this chapter I attempt to describe this unique way. I would like however to signal a persistent concern, which is that my writing of these ideas will reduce the complexity of a dynamic process. The complexity I am referring to is beyond an intellectual process of describing a set of ideas that determines a practitioner's thinking and positioning of her/himself. It encompasses a range of abilities including the ability to be emotionally and intellectually available to the therapeutic relationship, with enough detachment to make partial sense of self and other information. By partial sense I mean the putting into language of an incomplete explanation, a possibility. This possibility is introduced to the therapeutic conversation as a wondering, a question, in contrast to a certainty or knowledge statement. In exploring this possibility we are more engaged with the present moment. The therapeutic relationship thus becomes a site and resource for discovering experiences and knowledge in respect to the self in relationship to another."
- The Heart's Narrative, pps.91-92

Back to Top

No. 14
The journeying, composing or narrating process I use relies on the following key components:

1) Creating a living practice through relational consciousness. This occurs through:

1. relational language-making
2. constructing the continuous present
3. constituting the active ‘I’
4. generating metaphors of movement
5. constructing relational presence in order to escape the binary.

2) Developing the contextual environment through the conversational process.

3) Maintaining a practical deconstructive attitude to the language we use while reconstituting this language. This reconstitution allows us to renegotiate meaning while exposing the power relation inherent in the taking up of some meanings over others.

4) Sustaining an attitude of discovery.

5) Using the imagination as an important therapeutic resource.

6) Using the experiential within the therapeutic relationship as a knowledge resource.

7) Working with time in the present moment.

8) Negotiating the power relation.

9) Navigating, holding and drawing the threads of discovery together in a coherent form.

10) Moving and sustaining the therapeutic discoveries into the everyday.
- Talk That Sings, pp.83

Back to Top

No. 15
In turn the relational consciousness is generative of a relational linguistic enquiry. In the movement to a relational paradigm it is possible to expose the implications and effects of the power relation (within the therapeutic relationship, supervisor/ supervisee, teacher/student relationship). I've described this in this way:

"The therapeutic relationship understanding draws our attention to the power relation within the therapeutic relationship. People (clients) are talking about and exposing thoughts, feelings and actions to another person who is deemed a member of the professional classes, i.e. therapist, counsellor, psychologist, psychiatrist. The traditional role of members of the professional class (doctors, lawyers, teachers, therapists, social workers, accountants) is to classify, assess and interpret according to over-riding principles of success/failure, right/wrong, normal/ abnormal, well/sick. The social sanction that enables us to engage in assessment and classification places us in a powerful position within the therapeutic relationship. This position of power exists beyond our politics, personal attributes, social and class membership and gender. It exists beyond our theories, intentions and technical abilities. It exists because we cannot stand outside of power relations. With this knowledge of power relations within the therapeutic relationship we can however undertake conversations about how we ethically engage with power difference. These conversations can be held both in and outside of the therapeutic relationship. Example - note taking.
- The Heart's Narrative, pp.129

Back to Top

No. 16
We begin this process by shifting language, e.g. 'I feel misunderstood'.

1. When did you notice the understanding in the relationship getting lost?
2. Do you think there has been a mutually known relationship understanding before this time?
3. How was this relationship understanding negotiated?
4. When you noticed this understanding getting lost, what did you do?
5. How do you think the other person would have made sense of this?
6. Has the sense of understanding in this relationship ever been lost in the past and then found?
   - How did that happen?
7. What would the other person need to know about you for you to know that a sense of understanding was being reclaimed?
8. If this sense of understanding was re-established in the relationship, how could you both protect the relationship from similar experiences of loosing understanding?
9. What would tell you that a renewed sense of understanding had been achieved in the relationship. What would have changed?

In this example we are re-searching the movement toward and away from a sense of understanding. The understanding we are constructing is neither generated by you or by me. It is generated by a relationship to the relationship (which carries a history, expectations, hopes dreams). It is generated by constructing a relationship to the words used to construct meaning. It is generated by a relationship to the meanings made of body language/body posture and the emotional resonance that tills the word lines.
- Talk That Sings, pp.94

Back to Top

No. 17
Exercise Three
Reciprocal Movement Between Ideas and Practices
In order to practice this movement between ideas and practices, think of a relationship value which you appreciate, such as equality, respect or sharing.

· In twos, with one person acting as the interviewer and the other person acting as an interviewee (refer Chapter Four, ‘Practising The Relational’ for format possibilities), begin an exploration of this value.

1. Name the specific value, while remaining aware that this naming may change in the interview.
   Develop questions which explore this value contextually.
2. Identify the practices which reflect this value?
   Example of a question: How would I notice the practising of (this value) in the relationship?
3. Re-search the development of this value over time — past/present/future.
   Focus on:
• What was the effect of practising this value or living out this value on the relationship and on the individuals? (Ask questions to discover the detailed living with and in this value.)
• Was there ever a movement away from the holding of, valuing of, practice of this value? If so, who noticed this movement?
• What did this person do to alert the other?
• What were the steps taken to re-strengthen or renegotiate this value in the relationship?
• In the renegotiation, did the naming of the value or importance of this value alter or change? If this did occur, how did this happen?
• Are both people vigilant to and for, either the building of this value or the diminishing of this value?
• If there is uneven effort or different effort, what/who supports this difference?
• Is there an appreciation of this vigilance?
• How is this appreciation represented or demonstrated in the relationship?
• Are the vigilance strategies and appreciation acts gendered in any ways?
4. Regularly summarise the discoveries you are making.
   At each summary point in the exercise, refocus on the following:
   • Questions which explore the movement between ideas and practices.
   
   
   • The use of relational language.
   • The development of new means of expression or the metaphors of movement which represent this person’s specific experience.

     -Talk That Sings, pps.133-134

Back to Top

No. 18

Back to Top

No. 19
WORKING WITH THE POWER RELATION
In Chapter 1 (pg....) I introduce the significance of the power relation to meaning negotiation within therapeutic contexts. Creating this body of thinking as a separate chapter allows me to highlight and focus on some of the multiple considerations inherent in working with the power relation. However, in this separating out there is a danger of losing sight of the fact that the power relation, its implications and effects, are an ever present, integral part of every therapeutic conversation, interaction and moment - they can never be separated out nor becalmed by good intentions or a single conversation. A power relation is generated whenever people are assigned to a socially sanctioned role which entitles them to assess, treat and act on behalf of others, supervise and/or manage others. This power relation exists despite the therapeutic model we use, the politics we hold or the values we live by. When the existence of the power relation is acknowledged we are confronted with these questions:

Q: How do we acknowledge work within and utilise this power relation in order to benefit both the people (clients) we work with and the relationships we are a part of?
Q: Within this power relation how do we orientate ourselves toward discovery given that we occupy a cultural, gendered and social place?
Q: How do we negotiate the effects of the therapeutic power relation as it intersects with gender, culture, class and sexuality relationships?

If these and other questions fail to make an appearance in the practice of relationships, therapeutic models or therapeutic ways of working, then an environment where meaning is imposed will exist. In therapeutic models where the power relation is unacknowledged, therapists con find themselves categorising others (clients) responses or actions. For example, 'Mary's (client's) lack of willingness to engage with the change strategies we suggested, indicates that she is manipulating the situation,' or 'Leon's (client's) refusal to attend the family meeting reflects his resistance to therapy.' This account or explanation of events is constructed by those holding the legitimate professional power to define psychological meaning while being experienced by those who carry less legitimate power. People (clients) will often believe in this account or explanation as this imposition of meaning confirms a deficit of self. It is rare for people (clients) to implicate or challenge those holding professional social power as responsible for this imposition of meaning. In this chapter I will focus on:

• the relational languaging practice that supports me to expose the power relation and
• the process I use to negotiate the power relation.

Back to Top

No. 20
THE MAKING OF RELATIONAL LANGUAGE

Introduction
In this Chapter, I hope to clarify the ways I have reconstructed the English language syntax in order to create the relational. The grammatical changes are more apparent through text than through dialogue. People rarely hear the grammatical change. Instead there is an experiential shift as people (clients) are positioned relationally. In this relational position people (clients) can reconsider a previously taken-for-granted notion, e.g. 'No one is listening to my point of view.'

• If you thought the point of view you hold was being listened to, how would you know? What would change?
• If the point of view you hold is listened to but isn't agreed with, would that be experienced as listening?
• This point of view which you hold, how have you come to this view point?
• Is it a point of view which can be changed or altered?
• As you hear the points of view which others had, how does this affect the viewpoint you believe in?

The shaping of language as I describe it in this Chapter, provides clinicians with an explanatory system for the relational making of language. These explanations will hopefully assist you to move the taken-for-granted language habits you use into relational languaging. I am proposing a process for re-making language. This process involves privileging presence through language rather than being linguistically positioned between the binaries of presence or absence. In the privileging of presence, everyday linguistic metaphors are constituted as moving. In the re-search of the experience of movement we (therapist and client) discover language which more closely reflects the specific experiences or knowledges of the person we are talking with.

Back to Top

No. 21
Through the use of the continuous present, we are constituting a process of sliding. In re-searching this process we are able to experiment with the creating of language which closely represents the living in and with certain life experiences. The metaphoric representation of these categories of ‘sliding’, i.e. beginning slide or different sliding, holds the potential to position Jane as acting on and with the sliding process.
Throughout this book there are many examples of the use of the continuous present. However the following list highlights the words I commonly use to generate the continuous present while making relational language.

Supporting

• What did you do to support the relationship decision for . . . ?
• What were the supports for . . . ?
• How did you support the decision you made to . . . ?

Acting

• If you act on the decision to . . . who or what would support that?
• When you took the first step toward acting on this new belief, ‘I am entitled to live’
  – What happened?
  – What thoughts, experiences, feelings, came forward, who noticed?
  – How does it effect . . .?

Engaging

• When you are engaging with this life long protection strategy of pretending to be happy
  – What happens?
  – Who notices?
  – What thoughts, experiences, feelings come forward?
  – How does it effect . . .?
  or,
  – This idea of perfectionism that you find yourself engaging with?

Using

• When you use this determination to succeed

Sensing

• This sense of freedom from despair that you describe.

Moving towards

• What are the feelings that come forward as you take up this commitment to challenge these persecutory ideas?

Holding

• If you were to hold the idea ‘he loves me’, what feelings or thoughts come forward?
  Simon, what is the effect on the relationship of you holding the position ‘nothing will change’?

Moving Away

• In moving away from the possibility that life is controllable, toward the possibility that I can control how I responded to that which is beyond my control . . . what have you discovered?

Making

• When you found yourself making the decision to take a stand to quieten those ideas that belonged to the man who physically abuse you . . .

Experiencing

• When you experienced this glimmer of hope five minutes ago . . .

Connecting

• When you are strongly connecting with this hope that she’ll change . . .

Coming to

• These feelings that come forward when you consider the possibility of living rather than waiting to die . . .
• These experiences that come forward when you
• These thoughts that come forward when you

Collecting

• When you collect the evidence for this position you have taken.

- Talk That Sings, pps.58-59

Back to Top