Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Therapist Positioning and Power in Discursive Therapies: A Comparative Analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Contemporary Family Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The “discursive turn” in therapy gave the therapeutic relationship its deserved significance, which was implied but never fully recognized in traditional therapy literature. The exception would be the writing of Rogers, Satir, and Whitaker. Therapists’ actions in relation to clients became the topic of critical analysis and reflection rather than a resource for addressing some underlying inter- or intra-psychic forces and processes. This paper focuses on the issue of the therapist’s relational engagement with families, particularly the notion of therapist power, as conceived within three discursive approaches to family therapy: narrative, solution-focused, and collaborative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The exception would be the writings of Virginia Satir (1983) and Carl Whitaker (Whitaker and Keith, 1981).

  2. “Positioning” is a momentary assumption of certain rights and obligations with respect to what sorts of things a person in that position can say or do. Discursive positions are locations from which people engage others as they interact (Davies and Harré 1990). For me, positioning is a fluid, interactive process contingent upon the efforts of all people in interaction. As Winslade points out, “Any position in a relation creates an implicit (even if not explicitly stated) platform for another to respond from and gestures towards the other an invitation to stand upon that platform in making a response” (2005, p. 353). Therapists’ actions in interaction are shaped by clients’ preceding actions (and the entire conversation up to that point or even previous conversations) and are, in turn, shaping of clients’ responses and vice versa.

  3. The term “discursive” refers to what people say and how they say it in communicating with each other.

  4. Discursive or collaborative therapies in general are not to be confused with the particular discursive approach known as “collaborative language systems.” Harlene Anderson, one of its developers, has recently shortened the title of this approach to “collaborative therapy” (Anderson 2005).

  5. From a discursive perspective, it would seem reasonable to view “empowerment” not as something unilaterally done to the client by the therapist but as an interactive process, whereby the client’s sense of mastery and agency are developed and expanded in the course of dialogue.

  6. I have only touched on certain aspects of this micro–macro debate. For further details see, for example, Korobov (2001), Schegloff (1997), Billig (1999), and Wetherell (1998).

  7. “Systemic” refers to how client problems are understood in relational context, as products and processes of patterns of relational interaction.

  8. As a social constructionist therapist and researcher, I believe that it is impossible to arrive at an accurate, objective perspective on what transpires in therapy. Researchers can only offer accounts or versions of what happens when therapists and clients interact, based on their favored theoretical and methodological commitments.

References

  • Anderson, H. D. (1990). Then and now: From knowing to not-knowing. Contemporary Family Therapy, 12, 193–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. D. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. D. (2001). Postmodern collaborative and person-centered therapies: What would Carl Rogers say? Journal of Family Therapy, 23, 339–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. D. (2003). Postmodern social constructionist therapies. In T. L. Sexton, G. R. Weeks, & M. S. Robbins (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 125–146). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. D. (2005). Myths about ‘not-knowing’. Family Process, 44, 497–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. D. (2007). Dialogue: People creating meaning with each other and finding ways to go on. In H. D. Anderson & D. Gehart (Eds.), Collaborative therapy: Relationships and conversations that make a difference (pp. 33–59). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. D., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 371–393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, H. D., & Goolishian, H. A. (1990). Beyond cybernetics: Comments on Atkinson and Heath’s ‘Further thoughts on second order family therapy.’ Family Process, 29, 159–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2005). Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 7, 627–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, B. J., & Heath, A. W. (1990). The limits of explanation and evaluation. Family Process, 29, 167–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson, & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

  • Berg, I. K., & de Shazer, S. (1993). Making numbers talk: Language in therapy. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The new language of change (pp. 5–24). London: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, I. K., & Dolan, Y. (2001). Tales of solutions: A collection of hope inspiring stories. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose orderliness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society, 10, 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buttny, R. (1996). Clients’ and therapist’s joint construction of the clients’ problems. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 125–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cecchin, G., Lane, G., & Ray, W. A. (1992). Irreverence: A strategy for therapists’ survival. London: Karnac.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1986). The process of problem (re)formulation in psychotherapy. Sociology of Health and Illness, 8, 44–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, B., & Miller, S. (2000). The heroic client. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Shazer, S. (1994). Words were originally magic. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson, V. C., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1993). A narrative approach to families and adolescents. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The new language of change (pp. 226–250). London: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4, 249–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaskas, C. (2002). Family therapy beyond postmodernism. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaskas, C. (2004). Thinking about the therapeutic relationship: Emerging themes in family therapy. American and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25(1), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaskas, C., Stagoll, B., Larner, G., Hart, B., Doan, R., Weingarten, K., Loth, W., Hayward, M., & Pocock, D. (2000). Dialogues of diversity in therapy: A virtual symposium. ANZJFT, 21, 121–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. M. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage.

  • Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2003). The birth of the clinic: The archeology of medical perception (A. M. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Routledge.

  • Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Marrs, A. L. (2000). Responding to blame in family therapy: A constructionist/narrative perspective. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman S. (Ed.). (1993). The new language of change: Constructive collaboration in psychotherapy. London: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, S., & Fanger, M. T. (1991). Expanding therapeutic possibilities: Getting results in brief psychotherapy. Toronto, Canada: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frith, H. (1998). Constructing the ‘other’ through talk. Feminism & Psychology, 8, 530–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, J. (1991). Conversation analysis of therapeutic discourse: The pursuit of a therapeutic agenda. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibney, P. (1996). To embrace paradox (once more, with feeling): A commentary on narrative/conversational therapies and therapeutic relationship. In C. Flaskas, & A. Perlesz (Eds.), The therapeutic relationship and systemic therapy (pp. 90–107). Karnac.

  • Golann, S. (1988). On second-order family therapy. Family Process, 27, 51–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldner, V. (1991). Feminism and systemic practice: Two critical transitions in transition. Journal of Family Therapy, 13, 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldner, V. (1993). Power and hierarchy: Let’s talk about it! Family Process, 32, 157–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goolishian, H. A., & Anderson, H. D. (1992). Strategy and intervention versus nonintervention: A matter of theory? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 18(1), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gremillion, H. (2004). Unpacking essentialisms in therapy: Lessons for feminist approaches from narrative work. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17, 173–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossen, M., & Apothéloz, D. (1996). Communicating about communication in a therapeutic interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 101–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilfoyle, M. (2001). Problematizing psychotherapy: The discursive production of a bulimic. Culture and Psychology, 7, 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilfoyle, M. (2003). Dialogue and power: A critical analysis of power in dialogical therapy. Family Process, 42, 331–343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guilfoyle, M. (2005). From therapeutic power to resistance? Therapy and cultural hegemony. Theory & Psychology, 15(1), 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardham, V. (2006). Bridges to safe uncertainty. An interview with Barry Mason. ANZJFT, 27(1), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare-Mustin, R. T. (1994). Discourses in the mirrored room: A postmodern analysis of therapy. Family Process, 33, 19–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, M. (2003). Critiques of narrative therapy: A personal response. ANZJFT, 24, 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1997). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 183–200). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. (1992). A reflexive stance for family therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 7–24). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. (1995). Exchanging voices: A collaborative approach to family therapy. London: Karnac.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korobov, N. (2001). Reconciling theory with method: From conversation analysis and critical discourse analysis to positioning analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line J], 2.

  • Larner, G. (1995). The real as illusion: Deconstructing power in family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 17, 191–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larner, G., Rober, P., & Strong, T. (2004). Levinas: Therapy as discourse ethics. In T. Strong, & D. A. Paré (Eds.), Furthering talk: Advances in the discursive therapies (pp. 15–32). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P., & Luckmann, T. (1991). Asymmetries in dialogue: Some conceptual preliminaries. In I. Marková, & K. Foppa (Eds.), Asymmetries in dialogue (pp. 1–20). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipchik, E. (2002). Beyond technique in solution-focused therapy. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamee S., & Gergen K. J. (Eds.). (1992). Therapy as social construction. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monk, G. (1997). How narrative therapy works. In G. Monk, J. Winslade, K. Crocket, & D. Epston (Eds.), Narrative therapy in practice: The archeology of hope (pp. 3–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monk, G., & Gehart, D. R. (2003). Sociopolitical activist or conversational partner: Distinguishing the position of the therapist in narrative and collaborative therapies. Family Process, 42, 19–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monk G., Winslade J., Crocket K., & Epston D. (Eds.). (1997). Narrative therapy in practice: The archeology of hope. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. J., Cheng, W., & Weiner-Wilson, R. J. (2006). Exploring master therapists’ use of power in conversation. Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 475–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, B. (1998). Solution-focused therapy. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hanlon, W. H. (1993). Take two people and call them in the morning: Brief solution-oriented therapy with depression. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The new language of change (pp. 50–84). London: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hanlon, W. H., & Weiner-Davis, M. (2003). Solution oriented therapy for chronic and severe mental illness. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, A., & Doan, R. E. (1994). Story re-visions: Narrative therapy in the postmodern world. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlesz, A., & Brown, R. (2005). Adopting a research lens in family therapy: A means to therapeutic collaboration. In C. Flaskas, B. Mason, & A. Perlesz (Eds.), The space between experience, context, and process in the therapeutic relationship (pp. 171–186). London: Karnac.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peyrot, M. (1995). Therapeutic preliminaries: Conversational context and process in psychotherapy. Qualitative Sociology, 18, 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, G. (2002). The dynamics of power in counselling and psychotherapy: Ethics, politics, and practice. Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire: PCCS Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rober, P. (2005). The therapist’s self in dialogical family therapy. Some ideas about not-knowing and the therapist’s inner conversation. Family Process, 44, 479–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, N. (1990). Governing the soul. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, T., & O’Hanlon, W. H. (1999). Solution-oriented therapy for chronic and severe mental illness. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satir, V. (1983). Conjoint family therapy (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8, 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selekman, M. D. (2005). Pathways to change: Brief therapy with difficult adolescents (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. A. (2001). Feminism and conversation analysis: An oxymoron? Feminism & Psychology, 9, 471–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starhawk (1987). Truth or dare: Encounters with power, authority, and mastery. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong T., & Paré D. A. (Eds.). (2004). Furthering talk: Advances in the discursive therapies. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong, T., & Sutherland, O. (2007). Conversational ethics in psychological dialogues: Discursive and collaborative considerations. Canadian Psychology, 48, 94–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, O., & Couture, S. J. (in press). Collaboration as inter(action): Conversation analysis of family therapy process and outcome. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy.

  • Tomm, K. (1993). The courage to protest: A commentary on Michael White’s ‘Deconstruction and Therapy.’ In S. Gilligan, & R. Price (Eds.), Therapeutic conversations (pp. 62–80). New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomm, K. (2003, January/February). Promoting social justice as an ethical imperative. Family Therapy Magazine, 30–31.

  • Walter, J. L., & Peller, J. E. (1992). Becoming solution-focused in brief therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingarten, K. (1991). The discourses of intimacy: Adding a social constructionist and feminist views. Family Process, 30, 285–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weingarten, K. (1998). The small and the ordinary: The daily practice of a postmodern narrative therapy. Family Process, 37, 3–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretive repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9, 387–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, C. A., & Keith, D. V. (1981). Symbolic-experiential family therapy. In A. S. Gurman, & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (Vol. 1, pp. 187–225). Bristol, PA: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M. (1991). Deconstruction and therapy. Dulwich Centre Newsletter.

  • White, M. (1995). Re-authoring lives: Interviews and essays. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M. (2004). Folk psychology and narrative practice. In L. E. Angus, & J. McLeod (Eds.), The handbook of narrative and psychotherapy (pp. 15–51). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winslade, J. M. (2005). Using discursive positioning in counselling. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 33, 352–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this paper was made possible by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Special thanks to Tom Strong, Janice DeFehr, and Robbie Bush for their editorial comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Applied Psychology, University of Calgary, 3103 43 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada, T6T 1C6

    Olga Sutherland

Authors
  1. Olga Sutherland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Sutherland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sutherland, O. Therapist Positioning and Power in Discursive Therapies: A Comparative Analysis. Contemp Fam Ther 29, 193–209 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-007-9050-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-007-9050-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation