Preface to “Please Help Me With This Family”

By Carlos Sluzki ^(*)

My evolving path in the field of family therapy has earned me an enriching, uncertain and unpredictable journey through models many of which, at first, seemed to call into question the very essence of the preceding ones, but which, over time, gave rise to new syntheses: qualitative enrichments which, in their turn, undergo evolutionary transformations and new qualitative challenges. This evolution has prepared us to set certainties aside constantly, to say goodbye to precious concepts and to welcome – at times with apprehension – new points of view in a world (a world of ideas) that turns out to be unstable. In exchange, this evolution offers family therapists a rich, complex professional field, full of different textures.

Understanding understanding

Those “more recent” paradigms (they are already some thirty-five years old) that made family therapy a specific discipline initiated us into a one-way journey that goes beyond the individual: the interpersonal world in context became the minimal unit of observation, courtesy of cybernetics and systems theory. Some twenty years later another revolution occurred: that of second-order cybernetics. In the title of one of his lecture series, Heinz von Foerster, one of its forerunners, gives us a limpid example of the recursiveness that cybernetics entails. That series is called “U2”, that is, “Understanding Squared”, an abbreviation of “Understanding Understanding”. The English word under-standing is in itself etymologically recursive, since it lets us know that, in order to understand our position, we have to place ourselves outside that place. It is interesting to note that the German equivalent of understanding, verstehen, places us ver (“before”) rather than under stehen (“where one stands”). A word closely related to understanding from an etymological and conceptual point of view, the word “epistemology”, places us epi (a Greek prefix meaning “above”, but also “around”, “beside”, “after” and “over”) and histanai, that is, “the place” or “where one stands”. “Under”, “before”, “beside” or “above”, we are invited to place ourselves outside our place in order to acquire a perspective on ourselves in that place. At the same time, the title “U2” suggests that, in order to apprehend the process of apprehension, we need to place ourselves outside both the under and the standing: a second recursive turn. But outside what? We are part of the process we want to study, whatever distance we may wish to take by adding exponents to the “U”. In other words, the absence of firm ground from which to produce that observation (including observations bearing on the therapist or on the therapeutic process) is itself dependent on the observer, which calls into question any presumption of objectivity. Hence Maturana’s “objectivity in parentheses”.

Out of second-order cybernetics arose the most recent set of paradigms: constructivism and constructionism, the narrative model and, lastly, postmodernism, which passed the preceding models and the practices derived from them through the epistemological prism of recursiveness, postulating that the observer is part of the observation and of the observed and that he therefore organises reality according to his beliefs. A logical consequence of this notion of an observer-dependent reality: for a time, the focus of attention of our discipline moved away from the “family as a system” and the therapist became the main object/subject of observation. In its turn, that focus shifted towards the systemic properties of narratives.

A devastating effect on certainty

This evolution undergone by the presuppositions that govern us has had a devastating effect on certainty, directionality, forms of knowledge, scientific models, language and practices. Objective records have been replaced by stories, anecdotes and narratives. Normative presuppositions have given way to descriptions bound to context, culture and moment. Certainty about the prediction of effects has been set aside and we have begun to take care to avoid generalisations. The presupposition that there exists a fundamentally stable reality – the formula “all other things being equal” that preceded every prognosis of the futurologists, similar to the formula “this intervention is likely to have such and such an effect” used by many family therapists – has been replaced by the more cautious presupposition that we live in a world of developing stories of which we become part at the very moment when we begin to interact with the narrators, and in which we, as therapists, try, at best, to alter problem-saturated stories and to encourage potential transformations, with, unfortunately, fairly unpredictable effects. First-person-singular accounts have replaced the neutral language of academic writings, which concealed the authors.

Last but not least, the dissolution of a normative paradigmatic guide indicating how things ought to be (for whom? when?) has brought with it, for our field, a renewed emphasis on ethics, a dimension that for decades was thought not to belong to scientific discourse.

Narrative models; realities dependent on the observer, the context and the culture; unpredictability; descriptions that rely on cases and are reluctant to generalise; chaotic processes; ethics; and our everyday practices (clinical work, supervision, placements, research) were radically modified, in the course of the 1990s, by this new way of understanding the word understanding.

A carpet of experiences

“Please Help Me with This Family: Using Consultants as Resources in Family Therapy” successfully meets the great challenge of returning, in the 1990s, to one of our most precious practices as therapists: taking part in a transformative dialogue – call it consultation, supervision, counsel or apprenticeship – about our clinical practice with teachers, colleagues, students, institutions and even with the patients themselves. Those who have contributed to this book – under the influence of different lineages of learning, in the context of different cultures and with positions ranging from the best traditional paradigms to the most recent postmodern points of view – offer an enriching carpet of experiences, which is expressed as a collective discourse told in a harmonious voice and under the wise stewardship of Maurizio Andolfi and Russell Haber, respected teachers with an immense record of bibliographic contributions and enormous experience as teachers in the field of family therapy.

The consultation systems analysed in this book are very varied and extremely illuminating: from the therapist in dialogue with the splitting of his selves to complex interactive settings such as the families of origin of the members of the family therapy or the various institutions involved in a given event; from the versatile resource of one’s own intuition (Whitaker illustrates it effortlessly: one need only be a Whitaker!) to structured approaches for maximising consultation resources. Without realising it, I read this book in alternating fashion; I began with the chapters whose titles struck me as particularly attractive, or with others in which a clinical example caught my attention, and then I read what I had skipped. I ended up reading everything and I profited greatly from it: not only was I reassured to see a few old convictions reconfirmed but, more importantly still, I was often shaken by new ideas, points of view and challenges, which set in motion, once again, the endless process of learning. For all of this, thank you Maurizio, thank you Russ, thank you to the contributors. And to you, reader, have a good journey.

Consultation as an evaluation of the therapy ⁽²⁾

By Sara B. Jutorán ^(**)

An invitation to co-inspiration

When I was studying with Maurizio Andolfi, I was invited to intervene as a consultant in the therapy of a couple who were in treatment with him. The couple and I were asked to carry out an evaluation of the therapy and of the therapist, that is, of my teacher. Without hesitating and without receiving any prior information, I plunged into the turbulent waters of the session to play the unprecedented role of consultant to my teacher, while he remained a spectator behind the one-way mirror.

By allowing his student and his patients to evaluate his therapeutic work, Andolfi was inverting the relational patterns and the hierarchical roles, in the therapeutic system as well as in the teaching system. In this way he introduced unpredictable elements in order to increase the complexity of the system, setting in motion a process of reflection that made it possible to produce observations about the therapeutic system. Observing the evaluation allowed him to know how the patients perceived the effect he was producing. Likewise, the evaluation session, besides increasing the complexity of the system, produced more discontinuity by allowing the patients to measure the progress they were making towards their life goals.

Examining the therapy through consultation provides interesting feedback on the process – and on the progress – of the therapeutic relationship. Thus, the therapy can be defined as a therapy that is progressing or failing, a therapy that has come to a satisfactory end or that might resort to new methods, and so on. One could also evaluate the therapist’s positive and negative conducts: whether he is supportive, whether he brings creativity; whether he is dramatic, impatient or distant; whether he becomes too involved in the case, and so on. Essentially, Andolfi created a different context that gives rise to reflection within the therapeutic and teaching systems. Consequently, Andolfi’s reformulation of the function fulfilled by each of the participants inverted his hierarchical position in both systems, moving him from a one-up to a one-down position.

I shall take into account – from the point of view of someone observing and describing the consultation system – three distinct criteria that will give rise to different observations.

Observing the processes of interaction allows us to describe how the complementary relationships in the therapeutic and teaching systems are inverted. The therapist-patients relationship is inverted and becomes a consultant-co-consultants relationship, and the teacher-student relationship becomes a consultant-consultant relationship.

Observing the hierarchical roles of the therapeutic system, one can note that the therapist holds the role of expert and the couple that of clients, whereas, in the consultation system, it is the consultant and the couple, in their capacity as co-consultants, who hold the role of experts by evaluating the therapist’s work. “Power is not something that one person or another possesses; it is a relationship in which something is conferred on someone…” (Maturana, 1990a, p. 64). Power is therefore a concept that always implies the presence of two or more persons: one who confers the power and the other who assumes it. In this case, Andolfi gave power to his student and to his patients, and they assumed it.

According to Maturana, our emotions vary when we take part in linguistic interactions. As our emotions vary, our actions vary too, which recursively changes our language and our reasoning. Consequently, conversing is the interwoven flow of language and emotions, and the flow of conversing constitutes a conversation (1990b, p. 47).

Andolfi’s proposal gave birth to an organisation endowed with specific functions and roles for those who make up this system. The use of language in those different roles and functions triggered distinct emotions that gave rise to a different network of conversations (Maturana, 1990b).

The change of functions, roles and conversations that took place among those who make up the consultation system allowed Andolfi to broaden and increase his observations and his reflections. Likewise, being behind the one-way mirror, Andolfi gained freedom and distance and had less emotional participation, while the couple, through my intervention as a consultant, were able to perceive and experience their therapy with greater emotional participation. Likewise again, integrating the couple into the teaching system created greater symmetry in my relationship with Andolfi. His proposal was thus, as Maturana (1990c) puts it, “an invitation to enter the domain of co-inspiration”.

An unusual consultation

Gino and Anna are a middle-class couple. They have been married for sixteen years. She is 36 and a homemaker. He owns a shop and is 45. They have two children, one aged 13 and the other 15. As regards the therapy mentioned above, they had eleven sessions in five months, two sessions with their children and one with each of the families of origin.

Sailing in Latin American waters

When I entered the session, Gino gave me the impression of a formal, reserved man with an expressionless face; Anna struck me as attractive and refined, with a sad look in her eyes. She told me that my face seemed familiar to her and it turned out that she was Latin American. As I was born in Argentina, the coincidence of a shared Latin American origin seemed to favour a propitious climate, which was maintained throughout the rest of the session.

The cold war

Both of them defined their problem in a joking tone, which disconcerted me. Besides, their humour confirmed the impression I had had at the beginning: they had a good rapport with me and accepted me in the role of consultant.

Anna: We are here because we agree about everything. We want to find a method that will let us argue (she laughs).

Gino: We haven’t found it yet. The more time passes, the more we agree (he laughs too).

Anna (serious): That was a joke. We are here because in sixteen years we have never agreed about anything.

Gino: We don’t talk to each other. There is no communication between us.

Anna: It is more than that. It is a cold war.

Anna related that a year and a half earlier she had enrolled in an English course without saying anything to Gino. She took it for granted that he did not want her to have other activities, because of the fear he has of abandonment. When Gino found out that she had started studying English, he left home for a month and a half. He had already left her once before, after an argument about the many business trips he took, which upset her a great deal.

Sara Jutorán (consultant): So the one who left was your husband, because you did not like him going on business trips; and he left again because he did not like you taking English lessons.

Anna: Exactly.

Gino: Let me explain. She has a much stronger character than mine. We don’t talk, we argue all the time, and I always feel in an inferior position. I have no weapons to defend myself and, at a certain point, I lose my temper. And when she says: “He left”, what I feel is that I was thrown out. I was the one who felt very bad. Today I have given up the idea I used to have, according to which she should work only at home, as tradition would have it. I no longer believe it has to be that way. Since I have been coming here, I have changed a great deal. She has matured too…

Anna mentioned that, when Gino came back home, he talked to some friends about the problems there were between them, and that they suggested he consult Andolfi for couple therapy.

Double individual therapy

Both of them felt that their relationship had not improved, but they thought the therapy had been beneficial on an individual level.

The consultant: I would like to know what you think of the therapeutic process, from the beginning until today.

Gino: I believe this therapy is very profitable for me, even though it is painful. When we leave here, there is no dialogue between us. We live as if we were separated. Perhaps that is part of the therapeutic process. At the beginning, I came here to attack my wife’s position, to make her carry the blame for all those things she told you about. But then it was I who began to feel guilty. I blame myself for having worked only for my family, never for myself. I did not leave myself any room. Little by little, I began to notice my difficulties on the sexual and on the affective level and, even though it was painful and I did not like it at all, I realised that the therapy was producing results, because, if there is pain, it means the wound is closing up. I began to feel all those things stirring inside me; they made me think a great deal.

The consultant: Do you think the same, Anna? And yet you were saying you never agreed.

Anna: Yes, I believe this therapy is the one we need, but changes are happening in me that frighten me. On the one hand, I need to feel that I exist as a person, independently of my husband, my children, my parents; that I can do things for myself and by my own means. On the other hand, that frightens me a lot, because it would mean a major change in my life. I don’t know whether I have the strength needed to reach that goal.

The consultant: What do you think, Anna? Do you also think it would be a double-individual therapy?

Anna: It seems to me that is how it should be. You have to feel good with yourself in order to be able to have a good couple relationship.

Gino: That’s true. We are not fighting for the couple; it is rather through it that we are taking care of ourselves as persons.

The evaluation Gino and Anna made of the therapy allowed me to notice the processes of differentiation and individuation. They had moved from a description of their conflicts in terms of mutual reproaches and complaints to the perception of their own needs and difficulties and to the discovery of their own potential. That change allowed them to take responsibility for their own lives instead of attributing it to the spouse.

The therapist as the couple perceive him

The consultant: What is your opinion, Gino? Would you say, then, that Andolfi has failed in this couple’s therapy?

Gino: I don’t think so. If the therapy has managed to give us both the strength to move forward in one direction or another, no matter which, then it has not failed. On the contrary, I believe Andolfi has done good work.

Anna: It seems to me that is how it must be.

The consultant: Anna, what do you think Andolfi thinks: that he has been able to help you both?

Anna: Seeing us as we are today, I think he might feel that he has not helped us much as a couple. He has helped us as individual persons, and that seems very important to me, because it has led me to assess what I have done with my life. (She starts to cry.) I realised that it was not enough. I have always blamed others: my father, my mother, my husband, and the only guilty one is me.

The consultant: Sometimes a crisis is important in order to become aware of certain things.

Anna: That’s true. And now that I am 36, I don’t know what to do. It makes me sad, but I am not afraid. It is easier when you are twenty. I realised that I had not taken certain decisions, that I had always put the blame on others. It is easier to hide behind something.

The positive evaluation of Andolfi’s work that the members of the couple made at the individual level – despite the negative opinion they kept of their relationship – validated the goals achieved and confirmed their commitment to the therapy.

Questions about the future of the couple and of the therapy

The consultant: Anna, do you think the couple has a future?

Anna: I don’t know… if miracles exist… perhaps. I don’t know… if something could happen… Sometimes there are external factors that make people change their minds. Perhaps… I don’t know. (The short, broken sentences she uses reflect her doubts; the tone of her voice expresses the frustration and pessimism she feels.)

The consultant: And what do you think, Gino?

Gino: Yes, even if there is only one chance in a million, I want to try. (The lifeless voice and the rigid posture do not match what he says.)

The consultant: Anna, would you be willing to do something here?

Anna: I don’t know. It is as if I could not go on any longer. I am tired.

The consultant: Your husband said that, even if the chance were one in a million, he would go on coming to try to obtain something. And you?

Anna: I am afraid that… (she starts to cry) that I will be disappointed again. I am afraid.

At that moment, Gino, hesitantly, compares the consultation session with the therapy sessions. It is the first time I remember that Andolfi is behind the mirror, and I feel rather clumsy. The two roles – that of consultant and that of student – intersect. I feel caught in a triangle between Andolfi and Gino, who is trying to ally himself with me.

Gino: It seems to me that… Andolfi… perhaps I am mistaken… I don’t know, but it seems to me that he has not talked to us like this, analysing certain things, certain feelings, as we are doing now.

At once, Anna takes Andolfi’s side and paraphrases Gino’s words.

Anna: It seems to me that we have not had a session like this one with Andolfi because sessions depend on everyone’s mood. It is we who make the sessions. These things had not come out into the open before, perhaps because it was not the right moment.

From that moment on, the opening up of unresolved issues produced a greater emotional intensity. Gino expressed that the excessive intervention of Anna’s parents had been a cause of his indifference. Anna felt that not being able to count on Gino in difficult moments led her to turn to her father. Both spouses seemed shut up in a solitary prison. Anna was trying to hold back her sobs, but the pain was overcoming her. Gino, who had gone pale, seemed petrified. The pace of the session became slower and the tension reached its peak.

Anna: You were never there. You were always absent. Are you present as a father even now? (She speaks with more and more pain. She begins to raise her voice and nervously clutches in her hands the handkerchief with which she dries her tears.)

One had the impression that Anna was spitting out all the suffering accumulated over long years. I felt the force of her accusations; perhaps the presence of another woman allowed her to open up more. I tried not to give in to the impulse to take her side against Gino.

Gino: No, I don’t think it is me you chose as a father. You chose your father as the father of your children. I have never been close to the children because, every time you needed help, you turned to your father. (He seems to have difficulty expressing himself. The tone of his voice is the same. His face looks like a mask, which makes it hard to perceive the suffering his words carry.)

Anna: You were never there when I needed you. Never. Every time I wanted you to go somewhere with me, I had to call my father, because, if I asked you, you answered that you had a shop full of people to serve. I remember that I asked you to come with me when I had my hysterectomy, and you said you couldn’t, so I called my father. How do you think I felt, there, with him? How ashamed I was! I felt stupid.

Gino: I don’t remember that.

Anna: No? Well, I do. When I asked you to come with me to choose the hospital where our son was going to be born, what did you say? “Take a taxi and go with your sister.” I remember that, all the way there, I did not stop crying.

Gino: I don’t agree.

Anna: I don’t need you to come with me any more. Do you understand? (She starts crying again.)

Gino: I don’t agree with anything you say and I am quite willing to analyse these things day after day.

Throughout this sequence, Gino remained motionless. His voice could barely be heard and he was not looking at his wife. However, after they had argued a little more, as Gino seemed willing to work on these themes, I made use of my bond with Anna in order to reach an agreement.

Anna: I am so tired.

The consultant: It seems there are subjects that have not been broached yet.

Anna: That’s true.

Gino: Yes.

Anna: To tell the truth, I am so tired that I do not feel like resolving them.

The consultant: I don’t know; at least in my country, certain subjects are cleared up before a decision is taken.

Anna: That’s true. Certain decisions are only taken once everything is already clear, they are not taken out of nothing.

Gino: Exactly.

It seemed to me that this was the moment to restore the therapeutic system. I left the room to talk with Andolfi behind the mirror, where we decided to end the interview together, the two of us.

Andolfi: You have shown immense courage today, and I believe the consultant has helped you to do so.

Gino: Yes, I am glad.

Anna: So am I.

Andolfi: Perhaps it is because I was behind the mirror, but I feel, more than at other times, that there is a graveyard atmosphere, and it seems to me that you still have to spend more time in the graveyard… to manage to immerse yourselves in the miseries of life. At this moment, I have the impression that you would rather escape from the graveyard than stay in it. (To the consultant:) Do you agree?

The consultant: Yes.

Andolfi (to the couple): The consultant immediately touched on very important subjects. Right from the start, the encounter with your South American wife… it must have been something to do with the Latin spirit. (To the consultant:) Gino too acknowledged his mistakes straight away. The swiftness that is characteristic of having formed a close relationship as well.

Gino: It was very moving. Certain things touched me in a very particular way.

The consultant: I believe it would be important to clear the path; otherwise, there would be a new flight.

Andolfi: Yes, but they have not breathed that atmosphere of solitude in the graveyard. I believe they need to spend a lot of time there without the children coming to brighten up the situation. If they manage it, it will be very clear to me how much they want to commit themselves to the therapy, in order to get out of the graveyard and not spend their lives there.

Gino: And what the consultant said about sweeping the path?

The interesting metaphor used by Gino, after Andolfi’s intervention, served as a paraphrase of what I had said earlier, in an attempt to re-establish my role as consultant in Andolfi’s presence.

Andolfi: Let’s sweep it; after all, sweeping is our trade.

The pathetic sense of death in the couple’s relationship led Andolfi to recommend that they experience those sensations in the graveyard, in order to be able to aspire to the genesis of a new relationship. The powerful image of the graveyard underlined the need to bury the positions they had held in the relationship all their lives; it revealed the need to face the open wounds and challenged them to strengthen their commitment to the therapy.

When the couple left, I kept the impression that important subjects had been broached. I had the feeling that Gino and Anna had been able to connect with their voids and that, in this way, they had been able to reach more complex levels of understanding. I had no certainties – I suppose they had none either – about their future as a couple, but I knew that, by travelling this path of uncertainty, they would probably discover how to get out of their rigid, stereotyped functions.

On creativity and resources

Andolfi’s proposal to carry out an evaluation through consultation gave birth to three levels of observation.

Koestler (1964) coined the term bisociation, which he defined as “the perceiving of a situation or idea… in two self-consistent but habitually incompatible frames of reference…” (p. 35). The possibility of being situated simultaneously in two distinct relationships and two distinct roles provides two different frames of reference. The underlying perceptions found at the intersection of these two independent frames of reference can give rise to new emotions, meanings and behaviours. According to Koestler (1964), “the result… is either a collision ending in laughter, or their fusion in a new intellectual synthesis, or their confrontation in an aesthetic experience… the same pair of matrices can produce comic, tragic or intellectually challenging effects” (p. 45).

In the course of the process of this encounter, a complex network of bisociated contexts is created. Each of them has a specific frame of reference, endowed with specific rules and codes, organised into patterns of orderly behaviour. Simultaneous experience within two distinct frames of reference facilitates the “… transfer of the train of thought from one matrix to another governed by a different logic or rule…” (p. 95). Koestler regarded bisociation as “the essence of creative activity” (p. 231) and explained that “the creative act… always operates on more than one plane…”. It is a “transitory state of unstable equilibrium in which the balance between emotion and thought is disturbed” (pp. 35-36). “The creative act, by connecting previously unrelated dimensions of experience… is an act of liberation, the defeat of habit by originality” (p. 96).

This oscillation and intersection of roles and functions, past and present, within bisociated contexts triggers changes in the conversations, through the change of emotions and of language (Maturana, 1990b). That change became evident when Gino, in his role of co-consultant and patient, carried out a past and present self-evaluation of the change produced thanks to the therapy (see p. 8), while Anna was not sure she could carry out her goals (see p. 10). The comparison Gino and Anna made between the consultation and the therapy sessions (see p. 11) made it harder for me to hold my role of consultant and not to become another therapist. My decision to include the therapist in the session (see p. 13) put him back in charge. Nevertheless, when the session ended, Gino confirmed the repercussions the consultant’s presence had had, referring to the optimism she had shown (see p. 14).

This rather unusual interview offered us the possibility of seeing the situation with different eyes, from different perspectives and in different contexts. It allowed the members of the system to broaden their own domains, to experiment with and construct alternative realities and to produce new resources.

Second evaluation: one year later

Before the session

When I returned to Rome the following year, Andolfi asked me for a second evaluation-consultation of the therapy of Gino and Anna, which was still going on. He told me that the outcome of the consultation carried out the previous year had led to a notable and lasting improvement in the couple’s relationship. He had suggested that they write to me about the changes they had achieved. But they never wrote those letters, because they did not want to send them to me before they were completely “out of the graveyard”. It is possible that thinking about those as yet unwritten letters kept alive the presence of the consultant and the impact of the consultation interview.

That year, Gino decided to leave the family business and open his own. That decision, which tied him even more to his work, was badly received by Anna, who felt more abandoned than before. For her part, Anna wanted to find an activity of her own, but she did not yet feel sure of her capacity for independence. Conflicting needs reappeared and the relationship between them became difficult again, though with different nuances. Each of the spouses was now taking more care of their own needs and difficulties. The reproaches they made to each other had clearly diminished, but both were beginning to think about the possibility of divorce.

Although Andolfi and I agreed to do a second evaluation, because of the stress the couple were going through we decided to postpone that evaluation to the last part of the session. Consequently, Andolfi once again created a new and different structure for the interview, by including me as a co-therapist.

Melting the ice

When I entered the session, I was surprised to see how much they had changed. Gino looked much more alive and more connected, and Anna more attractive and more animated.

The consultant: I see that you have changed.

Anna: For better or for worse?

The consultant: You look different.

Anna: Separated or together? (We all laugh.)

Andolfi: How can you tell the difference?

The consultant: They look warmer, more confident in themselves, more alive, especially Gino.

Anna: I have news for you. (She looks animated.) I have started a vocational guidance course. It is for women who have never worked, like me… (Andolfi and I congratulate her, shaking her hand.)

Andolfi (to Gino): And you, have you congratulated her?

Gino: No, but what she has done is important. (Anna’s decision does not seem to please him very much, but he shakes her hand and she looks at him mischievously.)

Anna: I don’t think things can go any worse than they already are. I have to try something else. If I had an activity, maybe I would not feel Gino’s lack of attention, nor would it bother me that he does not spend time with me, and I would not expect everything from him. I was making his life impossible, so I took the decision to do something for myself. I started yesterday. I was very afraid, my hands were shaking, but today it was not so difficult. (She speaks with enthusiasm.)

The consultant: Gino, what do you feel on seeing Anna so enthusiastic?

Gino: I believe she has taken the right decision. (He seems cold and distant, which makes me think that he does not like it much.)

Anna: These last two weeks, I have realised that I had never given him the chance to understand what I wanted, because I was afraid he would not agree with me. If I become stronger and find the right path, maybe he too will change his attitude.

Andolfi: That is an open, important search. (To the consultant:) Each one has to be capable of seeing their own shortcomings, instead of seeing the other’s. It seems to me that Gino too has begun to see them.

Gino: For me, the greatest gain of this therapy has been to know myself better. (I am surprised that it is he who brings up again the evaluation of last year’s therapy.) Now I see more clearly who I am and I believe the best thing would be to put an end to our marriage. The problem is that I do not have enough strength to do it. Today I need to see my own problems. (His voice is much more animated, he is more relaxed and seems to be in touch with himself.)

Andolfi: Why don’t you tell us about those problems?

Gino (suffering more and more and in a very low voice): What happens is that nothing satisfies me. Perhaps it is due to my insecurity or to my excessive sense of responsibility, I don’t know; the problem is that I cannot find any way out. Now I have more work, which means more effort, and that is positive; but I would need someone in my family to acknowledge it. I feel bad from the moment I get up. (He cannot go on speaking and starts to cry.)

Anna looks at him and starts to cry too. There is a long silence charged with great emotional intensity. Anna is surprised that Gino is crying; she says she is worried about him and points out that he has built a wall around himself. She also insists on the fact that he does not allow himself to enjoy life. I am surprised to hear her say that she is worried about Gino, something she had not shown at the previous year’s meeting. I reframe Gino’s tears as the beginning of the opening of the wall; Andolfi expands this idea and provokes Gino by pointing out to him that, until now, he was a spectator who merely accompanied Anna in therapy, but that today he is present. Gino’s reaction is to try to ally himself with me once again.

Gino: I feel the consultant’s presence very much, today as on the previous occasion.

Gino’s reference to the previous meeting offers me the opportunity to put the earlier consultation session on the table. To my surprise, since we had not agreed on this beforehand, Andolfi goes off behind the one-way mirror. This second part of the interview is consequently isomorphic to that of the previous year.

The consultant: Do you both remember last year’s interview?

Gino: Yes, of course.

Andolfi: Good, I am going behind the mirror. (Andolfi leaves.)

Gino: For me, it was like a space inside the therapy. I felt you as someone who, with the aim of helping, wants to enter into the very essence of what is happening.

Anna: It was very important and I remember it very well. I cried so much… But afterwards I found the strength to start again, to try once more, and I saw the marriage in a better light. So much so that, for quite a while, we got on well. But four weeks ago it was Andolfi who threw me into crisis when he said to me: “It is as if your husband had married another woman before marrying you, and that woman is his work. You will always be the second one.” Since then, I stopped talking and began to look at myself from the inside. I saw my insecurities and discovered that I had missed a whole stage of my life.

The consultant: I understand. And you, Gino, what do you think of last year’s interview?

Gino: I believe that these interviews we have once a year allow us to bring important things to light. It is like leaving one path to take another, then coming back to the first. It was very important, there was a real dialogue between us, with a lot of commitment; you entered into our intimate feelings. With Andolfi it is different; it is like travelling along a path we do not know.

Anna: Yes, he shows us a path and then he strikes a blow. For example, he says something to Gino about me and, when I get home, I remember it and start thinking about it. When he talked to me about my insecurities, I was very disturbed because, for me, the one who needed help was Gino.

The description they give of the two different styles of therapy strikes me as quite unusual and very interesting. This time, Andolfi’s presence behind the mirror does not make me uncomfortable, most probably because our relationship has changed. Besides, Gino’s comments have a different characteristic, which can also be observed in Anna’s: there are no accusations, but mutual respect. I also notice the configuration of new alliances compared with the previous interview: on the one side, the consultant and the therapist; on the other, the married couple.

Gino: Lately, Andolfi told me that I had so much rage inside me that no one could even make me cry. An incredible coldness, he said to me. And yet, today, I was able to do it.

The consultant: That is what I noticed at the very moment I came in. I noticed that the ice was melting.

Anna: Opening up involves a risk, because the other can say: “I like you” or “I don’t like you”.

The consultant: The question is whether there is enough strength to take that risk.

Anna: I don’t know.

The consultant: Do you think Gino has changed?

Anna: Yes, but I am afraid he will close up again. Whatever happens, I have decided to go forward and, if he accepts me like this, so much the better, because I would rather resolve everything without coming to a separation. He has to accept me as I am: a woman who can make mistakes, but who can also take on responsibilities. I have not managed it yet, but my intention is to follow that path. Perhaps we will both be able to start everything again from the beginning.

The consultant: It is not at all easy; it represents an enormous challenge.

Gino: I am afraid too because now, looking at our past, I do not want things to go on like this. I am afraid of being the one who wants to separate.

The consultant: It is interesting to see how things have changed. Now it is you, Gino, who want to separate, whereas the other time it was you who had said: “Even if there is only one chance in a million, I want to try.” Do you remember?

Gino: Yes, I remember.

The consultant: Do you think you are going to continue the therapy?

Both of them: Yes, whatever happens.

The possibility of evaluating one year later the influence the consultation had created a structure isomorphic to that of the evaluation of the therapy. During the consultation, the therapist was able to obtain information about his work with the couple. This interview allowed the consultant to obtain feedback about the previous meeting with them. The two evaluations highlighted different stages of the therapeutic process, which allowed the patients, the therapist and the consultant to review and verify the current state of the process.

The follow-up session was not the last meeting we had with Anna and Gino. We saw them again the following week. There was an atmosphere of openness and warmth, full of humour and life. The couple mentioned that positive changes had occurred and put forward the idea of a follow-up session the following year. At the beginning of that last session, Gino’s words seemed to reflect the whole exchange of roles and functions when, taking on the role of therapist, he asked Andolfi and me jokingly: “You look sad and tired; can we help you?”

The following year, Andolfi informed me that Gino and Anna were doing very well.

Final synthesis

The idea of creating a consultation team with the clients in order to evaluate the therapeutic process offers new alternatives in the field of family therapy. It allows the participants to broaden their experiences by seeing the therapeutic system from different frames of reference. The therapist’s decision to exchange roles and functions validates the personal competences and the potential of each of the members. The freedom and responsibility involved in evaluating a therapy encourage the emergence of new interactions, perceptions and choices, which produces unpredictable domains of creativity.

Doors have opened that allow us to glimpse new horizons or, perhaps, the same horizon in different lights. It is possible that the effects of the traditional light will make the new colours that may have appeared grow pale. Or perhaps the new lighting will bring out hidden colours, never imagined. In the delicate balance between the known lights and the new ones, which lights prevail will depend on each one of us alone.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Maurizio Andolfi for having offered me the opportunity to take part in his consultation, Humberto Maturana and Russ Haber for having helped me in the revision of this manuscript, and Mrs Rita Kauders for having helped me with the translation.