|
Do
you have a question or comment? Send
us an email. |
Six Blind Elephants:
Volume I
Understanding Ourselves and Each Other
by Steve Andreas
Reframing using a different scope (excerpt from chapter 7, How scope influences
category)
In the previous examples of changing scope, we have added or subtracted scope
from an experience, but part of the scope has remained constant, and this will
usually be the case. But you can also change the scope entirely, what has often
been called “change frame,” or “different frame” in NLP. The existing scope in
space/time is replaced with a different one that doesn’t overlap with the previous
one. A different scope can be thought of as an extreme case of overlapping scope,
since probably some little bit of the previous scope actually stays the same,
even when someone’s attention changes radically.
Making a shift to a completely different scope is a much larger shift than the
other kinds of shifting scope. Accordingly it sometimes requires an abrupt transition
that distracts from the existing scope, which is then replaced by attending to
the different scope.
Milton Erickson frequently used some variation of what he called the “confusion
technique” or “pattern interrupt” in which he created a situation that was difficult
or impossible for someone to categorize and understand. This would completely
interrupt and distract them from whatever they had been experiencing. When someone
is confused, they typically struggle desperately to find meaning, so they are
much more open to almost any new meaning that would release them from their confusion.
Then Erickson would redirect their attention to a different scope and categorization,
and often they would have amnesia for the previous scope.
When a shift to a different scope is less complete it can be made more gently.
A simple example is to ask someone to think about what they would say to someone
else who had the problem or difficulty that they are struggling with. “If your
child, or a friend, had this problem, and you really would like to help them solve
it, what could you do with them or suggest to them that would make a difference?”
When someone follows this suggestion, they step out of the problem completely,
and see it as an outside observer would. This places the problem outside the client,
where it can be examined more dispassionately. The only thing that stays the same
is the structure of the problem, leaving behind all the judging, urgency, emotional
response, etc.
Therapeutic metaphor is a similar way to shift to a completely different scope.
A story is told about someone else, an animal, or even a choo-choo train, that
has the same structure as the client’s situation or problem. Then the story is
continued to reach some kind of resolution, which can be specific or general.
The best metaphors are those in which the transition from the problem to a solution
includes a dream, reverie, or other altered state to achieve a deep access to
resources that are not conscious. Again the problem is placed outside the client,
as if it were happening to someone else, making it easier to think of possible
solutions.
A very similar way to separate from a problem has been presented prominently by
Michael White and David Epston, in what they call Narrative Therapy. In externalization,
someone’s symptom is described as being outside of them and personified. For instance,
a child who shits his pants is told that his problem results from the activities
of “sneaky poo,” an invisible entity that sneaks up on him and makes him shit
in his pants. The child is encouraged to further objectify sneaky poo by telling
a story about sneaky poo, drawing pictures of him, speculating about his characteristics
and motives, etc.—when and where it most likes to sneak up on the child, and what
its intentions are. With this little bit of information about this intervention,
think about how it changes the scope of the problem, not only for the child, but
also for the parents, and the therapist. . . .
If we expand the scope of our thinking to the events that occurred before the
parents bring a child into therapy with this problem, we can safely assume that
it has been very unpleasant for both parents and child, so both have a lot of
strong feelings about it. The parents have probably tried to solve the problem
by punishing the child in a variety of ways, perhaps including blaming and shaming.
At the very least, there has been an opposition and struggle between the parents
and the child, and of course this “control issue” may be an expression of a much
wider struggle for control between the parents and the child. Since the child
is much smaller and weaker, his major recourse is to behavior that is categorized
as “not under his control.” That motivates him to maintain the “uncontrollable”
behavior as part of his struggle for control.
The child may actually experience the symptom as uncontrollable, in the same way
that an adult may feel that they can’t control their compulsion to overeat, get
angry, etc. Typically people make the mistake of trying to control this kind of
behavior directly by opposing it with conscious willpower. It is much easier and
more effective to change the response indirectly by changing the stimulus, or
the meaning of the stimulus, that elicits the response.
Since “control” is a more general category that includes many other events besides
where and when to take a dump, it is at a higher logical level. Once the problem
migrates to this level of control—who will control whom—it is almost certain that
both the parents and the child will forget that the child and the parents would
both like him to have control over his dumps. Whenever people get into struggles
about control, they usually forget that they only want control in order to satisfy
some other need or desire, a narrow scope that is not useful. Because control
presupposes an opposition, they are even less likely to think about how their
desires could be the same as someone else’s, which would be a useful expansion
of the scope of their thinking.
In externalization, the most obvious change in scope is that the problem is now
located outside the child in space. This is a process of dissociation, or separation
from the problem, which typically results in less intense and more useful feeling
responses. Dissociation is a generally useful initial intervention in any situation
in which emotions are strong.
Presumably both the child and the parents have enough contact with reality to
realize that sneaky poo is fictional—even when they talk about it as if it were
real. This “as if” categorization, “This is not real” adds to the dissociation,
resulting in a much more playful and creative attitude toward dealing with the
problem itself. Take a minute or two to imagine interacting with a child with
this problem as you introduce the idea of sneaky poo, and begin to explore with
him how sneaky poo operates. . . .
If you observe the look on the child’s face in your imagined scenario (which is
also in the “as if” category) your unconscious mind has probably given you vivid
information about how most kids would respond to this. (This is a very positive
use of your “inner child.”)
Externalization also results in a change from the child being a problem, to having
a problem. Often the child is described as being the problem, as in “problem child,”
a much larger scope that includes all the child’s behaviors. Externalization separates
one behavior from the rest of the child’s behavior, an example of the useful distinction
between self and behavior that is familiar to those in NLP. It is much easier
to change a single behavior than it is to change someone’s entire self, a reduction
in scope that literally makes the problem smaller, and easier to solve.
Externalization also changes the scope of the problem in time by locating it in
the present, making any (potentially endless) therapeutic explorations into the
“whys” of past traumas and causes irrelevant and obsolete. Focusing on the present
limits scope in a useful way to what is happening now, and what can be done about
it. This is much more elegant and effective than lecturing the parents (and perhaps
the therapist too) about the futility of what Virginia Satir often called “archaeology,”
or a “visit to the museum.”
Even more important, externalization changes the relationship between the child
and his parents. When the problem was seen as being in the child, the parents’
attempts at changing the problem were directed at the child, creating opposition
and struggle. The parents’ categorization of the child’s problem as something
to be blamed, shamed, or punished not only distracts from the original problem,
it adds to it, since those attempts are not likely to result in the child having
resourceful feelings, high self-esteem or the ability to solve problems creatively.
Since sneaky poo is the one responsible, not the child, all the parents’ self-defeating
efforts to change the child obviously and immediately become totally inappropriate—without
saying a word about it! If the parents do persist in blaming and shaming, etc.,
they have to direct it at sneaky poo, rather than the child. Think about how much
more effective and elegant this is than it would be to ask or tell the parents
not to blame, shame, or punish. If they were simply told this—even with lots of
good arguments and examples—they would usually have to make a conscious effort,
and they would probably find it very difficult. Even if they managed to avoid
using blaming words, blame would probably be conveyed in their tone of voice and
other nonverbal behavior.
Furthermore, since sneaky poo is explicitly categorized as an entity whose goal
is to make the child shit his pants, how can it be blamed for doing what it does?
By categorizing sneaky poo’s actions as intentional (rather than uncontrollable
or random) that opens up the possibility of exploring and finding out its positive
intention, another very useful expansion of scope that will be familiar to those
who have some knowledge of NLP. “Why do you suppose sneaky poo is doing this?
I wonder what he really wants.” Previously the parents were opposing the child—no
matter how benevolent and good-hearted they were. Now it is easy for the parents
and the child and the therapist to all work together to oppose and outwit sneaky
poo. They can examine the problem in great detail in order to understand it. Where,
when, and with whom does it happen? What are its consequences? What is different
about the exceptions when it doesn’t happen? What resources do the exceptions
suggest, and how could those be used to alter the problem? etc.
This elegant intervention bypasses all the bad feelings, blaming, accusations
of bad intent, etc., that typically occur in the struggle for control and distract
from examining the structure of the problem itself. It is very similar to Richard
Bandler’s interesting recategorization of a problem as a learned skill that can
be taught to others. “Let’s say I had to fill in for you for a day. What would
I have to do to have your problem? Teach me how to do it.”
Externalization can be used with a wide range of other problems, and with adults
as well as children, and potentially can be used with any problem whatsoever.
Instead of sneaky poo, you can use a gremlin, a ghost, or even an entity that
already fits the client’s model of the world, like “the bottle” or “the needle”
for drug abuse. Many alcoholics already blame “the bottle” and this is rightly
called “denial” if it goes no further. But it is also a possible entry into discovering
how it works and finding out how to alter the compulsion. Other possible entities
are trickster coyote for someone active in Native American traditions, or an anima
or animus for someone with Jungian background.
Read Exerpts from
Several Chapters
Logical
Levels (excerpt from chapter 5, Categories
of categories)
“Crazy”
Recategorization (excerpt from chapter
13, Higher level recategorization)
What others have said about Six Blind Elephants . . .
|
