Systemicwiki contributors - User contributions [en]

MediaWiki:Common.js

2026-09-26T23:54:24Z

Dsi.ionescu:

$( function () {
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgAction' ) !== 'history' ) {
return;
}

document.querySelectorAll( '#pagehistory li' ).forEach( function ( row ) {
var links = Array.from( row.querySelectorAll( 'a' ) );

var approve = links.find( function ( link ) {
return /^(approve|Approve this version)$/i.test(
link.textContent.trim()
);
} );

var talk = links.find( function ( link ) {
return link.textContent.trim().toLowerCase() === 'talk';
} );

if ( !approve || !talk ) {
return;
}

var url = new URL( talk.href, window.location.href );
url.searchParams.set( 'action', 'edit' );
url.searchParams.set( 'section', 'new' );
url.searchParams.set(
'preloadtitle',
'Review of ' + mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ).replaceAll( '_', ' ' )
);

var request = document.createElement( 'a' );
request.href = url.toString();
request.textContent = 'Request changes or suggest wording';

row.append( ' · ', request );
} );
} );

MediaWiki:Common.js

2026-09-26T23:51:24Z

Dsi.ionescu:

$( function () {
// Colour the sidebar counts.
document.querySelectorAll( 'a' ).forEach( function ( link ) {
var match = link.textContent.trim().match(
/^(Account requests|Review requests) $(\d+)$$/
);

if ( !match ) {
return;
}

var number = Number( match[ 2 ] );
link.textContent = match[ 1 ] + ' ';

var count = document.createElement( 'span' );
count.textContent = '(' + number + ')';
count.style.color = number > 0 ? '#c33' : '#36c';
link.appendChild( count );
} );

// Use plain language on page history screens.
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgAction' ) !== 'history' ) {
return;
}

document.querySelectorAll( '#pagehistory a' ).forEach( function ( link ) {
if ( link.textContent.trim() === 'prev' ) {
link.textContent = 'Compare this change';
link.title = 'See the earlier and newer wording side by side';
} else if ( link.textContent.trim() === 'cur' ) {
link.textContent = 'Compare with latest';
}
} );

document.querySelectorAll( 'input[type="submit"], button[type="submit"]' )
.forEach( function ( button ) {
if ( button.value === 'Compare selected revisions' ) {
button.value = 'Compare two selected versions';
} else if ( button.textContent.trim() === 'Compare selected revisions' ) {
button.textContent = 'Compare two selected versions';
}
} );
} );

MediaWiki:Skin-view-history

2026-09-26T23:41:14Z

Dsi.ionescu: Created page with "Changes and review"

Changes and review

MediaWiki:Vector-view-history

2026-09-26T23:39:50Z

Dsi.ionescu: Created page with "Changes and review"

Changes and review

MediaWiki:History short

2026-09-26T23:38:42Z

Dsi.ionescu: Created page with "Changes and review"

Changes and review

MediaWiki:Approvedrevs-approve

2026-09-26T23:34:26Z

Dsi.ionescu: Created page with "Approve this version"

Approve this version

MediaWiki:Histlegend

2026-09-26T23:32:44Z

Dsi.ionescu: Created page with "'''Reviewing this page''' The newest version is at the top. Each line below is a saved version of the page. # To check an edit, click '''prev''' beside it. This shows what that edit changed. # If you are satisfied with the text, return here and click '''approve''' beside the version you want readers to see. # If the text needs more work, leave it unapproved and discuss or edit it before approving. '''Other options:''' '''cur''' compares a version with the newest one...."

'''Reviewing this page'''

The newest version is at the top. Each line below is a saved version of the page.

# To check an edit, click '''prev''' beside it. This shows what that edit changed.
# If you are satisfied with the text, return here and click '''approve''' beside the version you want readers to see.
# If the text needs more work, leave it unapproved and discuss or edit it before approving.

'''Other options:''' '''cur''' compares a version with the newest one. The round buttons let you select two versions to compare. '''undo''' opens an edit to reverse a change; '''rollback''' reverses the latest contributor's edit quickly. Neither is needed to approve a page.

'''Check the date before approving:''' approving an older line makes that older version the approved one.

User talk:Testes

2026-09-26T23:20:47Z

Dsi.ionescu: Welcome!

'''Welcome to ''Systemicwiki contributors''!'''
We hope you will contribute much and well.
You will probably want to read the [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Help:Contents help pages].
Again, welcome and have fun! [[User:Dsi.ionescu|Dsi.ionescu]] ([[User talk:Dsi.ionescu|talk]]) 23:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Testes

2026-09-26T23:20:47Z

Dsi.ionescu: Creating user page for new user.

as asd asd asd asd asd

MediaWiki:Common.js

2026-09-26T23:17:57Z

Dsi.ionescu:

Narrative

2026-09-26T23:07:24Z

Dsi.ionescu:

= Narrative =

== Overview ==

Narrative Therapy is a poststructural and social constructionist approach developed principally by [[Michael White]] and [[David Epston]] during the 1980s.

Rather than locating problems within individuals, Narrative Therapy understands identity as being constructed through stories, relationships, language and culture.

Therapy focuses on helping people separate themselves from problems, recognise overlooked experiences and develop preferred stories that better reflect their values, intentions and relationships.

Narrative Therapy is collaborative, non-pathologising and strongly influenced by the work of [[Michel Foucault]], [[Gregory Bateson]] and [[Jerome Bruner]].

----

= Central assumptions =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

Narrative Therapy assumes that:

* identity is socially constructed
* people live through stories
* problems are separate from people
* language shapes reality
* knowledge and power are interconnected
* culture influences identity
* people continually resist problems
* preferred stories already exist within lived experience

----

= Theory of change =

In Narrative Therapy, change happens through re-authoring — a shift from a dominant, problem-saturated story to a preferred story, built from previously unnoticed unique outcomes and made durable through rich, connected description and an audience who witnesses and helps sustain it.

The therapist does not supply the new story. They ask questions that separate the person from the problem, notice moments the dominant story cannot account for, and help those moments develop into a fuller, thicker alternative — one the person recognises as truer to their own values and intentions than the story that brought them to therapy.

Change may happen through:

* externalising, which separates the problem from identity and frees the person to examine and resist it
* unique outcomes, which supply the raw material a dominant story has no room for
* thickening the plot, which makes a preferred story vivid, connected across time, and durable enough to survive future challenges
* outsider witnessing and therapeutic documents, which extend the new story into social and relational life rather than leaving it as private insight
* deconstructing dominant discourses, which reveals a problem's power as historically and culturally produced rather than natural, personal or permanent
* re-membering, which revises a person's relationship with significant others, living or dead, in ways that support the preferred story

This links strongly with:

* [[Re-authoring]]
* [[Externalising]]
* [[Unique outcomes]]
* [[Thickening the plot]]
* [[Outsider witness practice]]
* [[Dominant discourse]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Re-membering]]

----

= Foundations =

The school integrates ideas from:

* Poststructural philosophy
* [[Social constructionism]]
* Systems theory
* Anthropology
* Literary theory

----

= Knowledge structure =

== Foundational Concepts ==

* [[Externalising]]
* [[Problem-saturated story]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Re-authoring]]

----

== Core Concepts ==

* [[Unique outcomes]]
* [[Alternative story]]
* [[Narrative identity]]
* [[Identity conclusions]]
* [[Thickening the plot]]
* [[Absent but implicit]]
* [[Resistance]]
* [[Dominant discourse]]
* [[Cultural narratives]]
* [[Subjugated knowledge]]
* [[Re-membering]]
* [[Narrative documents]]

----

== Wider Narrative concepts ==

* [[Double listening]]
* [[Language games]]
* [[Life scripts]]
* [[Meaning-making]]
* [[Positioning]]
* [[Relationship stories]]
* [[Stories lived vs stories told]]
* [[Therapist transparency]]

----

== Narrative Methods ==

=== Meeting people and externalising the problem ===

* [[Meeting the person away from the problem]]
* [[Externalising conversation]]
* [[Experience-near naming]]
* [[Problem naming|Problem naming (technique-level entry: see Techniques)]]
* [[Problem-saturated story exploration]]
* [[Dominant story exploration]]
* [[Problem influence mapping]]
* [[Person influence mapping]]
* [[Position map]]
* [[Problem deconstruction]]
* [[Deconstruction]]

=== Developing alternative and preferred stories ===

* [[Unique outcome development]]
* [[Alternative story development]]
* [[Preferred story development]]
* [[Re-authoring conversations]]
* [[Landscape of action and identity mapping]]
* [[Scaffolding conversations]]
* [[Absent but implicit exploration]]
* [[Double listening practice]]
* [[Values exploration]]
* [[Identity story exploration]]
* [[Re-membering conversation]]

=== Documentation, witnessing and community ===

* [[Narrative letter writing]]
* [[Therapeutic documents]]
* [[Outsider witness practice]]
* [[Definitional ceremony]]
* [[Reflecting team in narrative contexts]]
* [[Collective story development]]
* [[Community of concern practice]]

=== Wider narrative practice ===

* [[Internalised other interviewing]]
* [[Narrative practice with children]]
* [[Narrative therapist positioning]]
* [[Aftercare and maintaining gains]]

----

== Narrative Techniques ==

=== Externalising and mapping ===

* [[Externalising questions]]
* [[Externalising metaphors]]
* [[Experience-near naming questions]]
* [[Problem naming]]
* [[Mapping the influence of the problem questions]]
* [[Mapping the influence of the person questions]]
* [[Mapping the effects questions]]
* [[Problem influence mapping questions]]
* [[Problem deconstruction questions]]

=== Statement of position and evaluation ===

* [[Statement of position map]]
* [[Evaluation questions]]
* [[Justification questions]]

=== Unique outcomes and re-authoring ===

* [[Unique outcome questions]]
* [[Unexpected outcome questions]]
* [[Sparkling moment questions]]
* [[Counter-story questions]]
* [[Alternative story questions]]
* [[Preferred story questions]]
* [[Re-authoring questions]]
* [[Landscape of action questions]]
* [[Landscape of meaning questions]]
* [[Thickening questions]]
* [[Absent but implicit questions]]
* [[Values questions]]
* [[Intentional state questions]]
* [[Internal state questions]]
* [[Future action questions]]

=== Scaffolding and distance ===

* [[Scaffolding questions]]
* [[Distancing questions]]

=== Witnessing, documents and therapist style ===

* [[Witnessing questions]]
* [[Witnessing reflections]]
* [[Therapeutic letter]]
* [[Certificates]]
* [[Documents of resistance]]
* [[Internalised other questions]]
* [[Narrative questions for children]]
* [[Situated comments]]
* [[Tentative reflecting comments]]
* [[Transparency statements]]
* [[Permission questions]]

----

= Therapeutic aims =

Narrative Therapy seeks to help people:

* separate themselves from problems
* recognise their responses to adversity
* reconnect with personal values
* develop preferred identities
* strengthen meaningful relationships
* challenge oppressive discourses
* create richer stories for the future

----

= Major contributors =

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]
* [[Michel Foucault]]
* [[Jerome Bruner]]
* [[Barbara Myerhoff]]
* [[Gregory Bateson]]
* [[Jill Freedman]]
* [[Gene Combs]]
* [[Gerald Monk]]
* [[John Winslade]]

----

= Related epistemologies =

* [[Narrative epistemology]]
* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
* [[Postmodern epistemology]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]

= Critique and contemporary use =

Narrative Therapy has been highly influential across systemic and community practice, but it also requires careful, reflexive use.

Possible critiques include:

* externalising, used too individually, can underestimate material constraints such as poverty, racism, violence or institutional power that a story alone cannot re-author away
* the therapist's own influence in helping co-author a "preferred" story can be underacknowledged, presenting a jointly-made account as though it were simply discovered
* the strongly verbal, language-based approach can be less accessible for some people and contexts unless deliberately adapted
* outsider witnessing requires careful facilitation, or the audience's response can inadvertently centre itself over the person whose story is being witnessed
* an emphasis on preferred stories can tip into a celebratory tone that avoids difficult, unresolved or genuinely painful material

Contemporary Narrative practice is strongest when it is combined with:

* [[Power and culture pathway]]
* [[Reflexive practice pathway]]
* [[Trauma-informed epistemology]]
* [[Anti-oppressive epistemology]]
* [[Decolonial epistemology]]

Narrative ideas should support careful, ethical and collaborative practice, not replace attention to material conditions, safety or accountability.

----

= Related pathways =

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Version status ==

Version 2.0 — rebuilt as a complete inventory in the shared school-page frame, following the [[Milan]] model: full concept, method and technique inventories, Theory of change and Critique and contemporary use sections in place.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

MediaWiki:Common.js

2026-09-26T22:40:50Z

Dsi.ionescu:

$( function () {
document.querySelectorAll( 'a' ).forEach( function ( link ) {
var match = link.textContent.trim().match(
/^(Account requests|Review requests) $(\d+)$$/
);

if ( !match ) {
return;
}

var label = match[ 1 ];
var number = Number( match[ 2 ] );

link.textContent = label + ' ';

var count = document.createElement( 'span' );

if ( number === 0 ) {
count.textContent = '(0)';
count.style.cssText =
'color:#36c !important;background:transparent !important;' +
'font-weight:normal !important;padding:0 !important;' +
'border-radius:0 !important;display:inline !important;';
} else if ( label === 'Account requests' ) {
count.textContent = String( number );
count.style.cssText =
'display:inline-block;margin-left:7px;padding:1px 6px;' +
'border-radius:12px;background:#c33;color:white;' +
'font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.5;';
} else {
count.textContent = '(' + number + ')';
count.style.cssText = 'color:#c33;font-weight:bold;';
}

link.appendChild( count );
} );
} );

MediaWiki:Common.js

2026-09-26T22:38:07Z

Dsi.ionescu:

$( function () {
document.querySelectorAll( 'a' ).forEach( function ( link ) {
var match = link.textContent.trim().match(
/^(Account requests|Review requests) $(\d+)$$/
);

if ( !match ) {
return;
}

var label = match[ 1 ];
var number = Number( match[ 2 ] );

link.textContent = label + ' ';

var count = document.createElement( 'span' );

if ( number === 0 ) {
count.textContent = '(0)';
// No styling: it keeps the link's normal blue colour.
} else if ( label === 'Account requests' ) {
count.textContent = String( number );
count.style.cssText =
'display:inline-block;margin-left:7px;padding:1px 6px;' +
'border-radius:12px;background:#c33;color:white;' +
'font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.5;';
} else {
count.textContent = '(' + number + ')';
count.style.cssText = 'color:#c33;font-weight:bold;';
}

link.appendChild( count );
} );
} );

MediaWiki:Common.js

2026-09-26T22:35:53Z

Dsi.ionescu:

$( function () {
document.querySelectorAll( 'a' ).forEach( function ( link ) {
var match = link.textContent.trim().match(
/^(Account requests|Review requests) $(\d+)$$/
);

if ( !match ) {
return;
}

link.textContent = match[ 1 ] + ' ';

var count = document.createElement( 'span' );
count.textContent = match[ 1 ] === 'Review requests'
? '(' + match[ 2 ] + ')'
: match[ 2 ];

count.style.cssText = match[ 1 ] === 'Review requests'
? 'color:#c33;font-weight:bold;'
: 'display:inline-block;margin-left:7px;padding:1px 6px;' +
'border-radius:12px;background:#c33;color:white;' +
'font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.5;';

link.appendChild( count );
} );
} );

MediaWiki:Common.js

2026-09-26T21:49:28Z

Dsi.ionescu:

$( function () {
document.querySelectorAll( 'a' ).forEach( function ( link ) {
var match = link.textContent.trim().match(
/^(Account requests|Review requests) $(\d+)$$/
);

if ( !match ) {
return;
}

link.textContent = match[ 1 ];

var badge = document.createElement( 'span' );
badge.textContent = match[ 2 ];
badge.style.cssText =
'display:inline-block;margin-left:7px;padding:1px 6px;' +
'border-radius:12px;background:#c33;color:white;' +
'font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.5;';

link.appendChild( badge );
} );
} );

MediaWiki:Common.js

2026-09-26T21:46:11Z

Dsi.ionescu:

$( function () {
document.querySelectorAll( 'a' ).forEach( function ( link ) {
var match = link.textContent.trim().match( /^Account requests $(\d+)$$/ );
if ( !match ) {
return;
}

link.textContent = 'Account requests';

var badge = document.createElement( 'span' );
badge.textContent = match[ 1 ];
badge.style.cssText =
'display:inline-block;margin-left:7px;padding:1px 6px;' +
'border-radius:12px;background:#c33;color:white;' +
'font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.5;';

link.appendChild( badge );
} );
} );

MediaWiki:Common.js

2026-09-26T21:41:42Z

Dsi.ionescu: Created page with "/* Any JavaScript here will be loaded for all users on every page load. */ document.addEventListener( 'DOMContentLoaded', function () { document.querySelectorAll( 'a[href*="Special:ConfirmAccounts"]' ).forEach( function ( link ) { var match = link.textContent.trim().match( /^Account requests $(\d+)$$/ ); if ( !match ) { return; } link.textContent = 'Account requests'; var badge = document.createElement( 'span' )..."

/* Any JavaScript here will be loaded for all users on every page load. */
document.addEventListener( 'DOMContentLoaded', function () {
document.querySelectorAll( 'a[href*="Special:ConfirmAccounts"]' ).forEach( function ( link ) {
var match = link.textContent.trim().match( /^Account requests $(\d+)$$/ );
if ( !match ) {
return;
}

link.textContent = 'Account requests';

var badge = document.createElement( 'span' );
badge.textContent = match[ 1 ];
badge.style.cssText =
'display:inline-block;margin-left:7px;padding:1px 6px;' +
'border-radius:12px;background:#c33;color:white;' +
'font-size:12px;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.5;';

link.appendChild( badge );
} );
} );

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2026-09-26T21:16:04Z

Dsi.ionescu:

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2026-09-26T13:45:25Z

Dsi.ionescu:

MediaWiki:Sidebar

2026-09-26T13:27:31Z

Main Page

2026-08-20T18:10:55Z

Dsi.ionescu:

= Welcome to SystemicWiki Contributors =

This is the '''collaborative editing space''' for [https://systemicwiki.com SystemicWiki] — a knowledge base on systemic and family therapy theory and practice.

'''SystemicWiki itself remains the canonical, authoritative version''', maintained directly by its author. This site is where suggested improvements, corrections and additions get proposed and reviewed before being incorporated back.

== How contributing works ==

# '''Read freely''' — no account needed to browse any page here.
# '''Propose an edit''' — registered contributors can edit pages directly; changes are held for review before going live.
# '''Review''' — accepted changes eventually make their way back into the main SystemicWiki.

== Getting started ==

* Browse the [[Special:AllPages|full list of pages]] currently available here
* Not yet registered? Contact the site administrator for an account
* Found something to improve? Navigate to the relevant page and select '''Edit'''

== Currently available ==

This site currently mirrors the '''Narrative pathway''' — its core school page, concepts, methods and techniques. More of SystemicWiki will be added over time.

----
''Questions or feedback? Return to [https://systemicwiki.com systemicwiki.com].''

Unique outcomes

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Unique Outcomes =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Unique outcomes are experiences, actions or events that do not fit the dominant problem-saturated story and therefore create opportunities for developing preferred stories and identities.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Unique outcomes are one of the central organising concepts of Narrative Therapy. They refer to moments in which the influence of the problem is absent, reduced or challenged, even if only briefly.

White himself also used the term '''sparkling events''' for these same moments — a more evocative, accessible alternate phrasing for the same underlying concept, sometimes used interchangeably with "unique outcomes" in his own writing and teaching.

When people become organised around a problem-saturated story, experiences that contradict the problem often go unnoticed or are dismissed as insignificant. Narrative Therapy assumes that these exceptions are not accidental. Instead, they provide important clues about people's values, intentions, relationships and preferred ways of living.

A unique outcome does not need to be dramatic.

It may be:

* a different response
* a new thought
* an unexpected feeling
* a meaningful relationship
* a moment of resistance
* a small act of courage
* an overlooked achievement

The significance of a unique outcome lies not in its size but in its capacity to challenge the dominant story.

Narrative therapists become curious about these moments because they provide the starting point for developing richer and more preferred stories.

Rather than asking why the problem exists, therapy begins asking:

* When was the problem less influential?
* What made that possible?
* What does that tell us about you?
* How might that experience become part of a larger story?

Unique outcomes therefore act as bridges between externalising conversations and re-authoring conversations.

----

== Supporting concepts ==

This concept incorporates the following supporting concepts:

* Exceptions
* Acts of resistance
* Sparkling moments
* Linking experiences

=== Exceptions ===

Unique outcomes are sometimes described as exceptions to the dominant story.

However, Narrative Therapy does not treat them as isolated events.

Instead, therapists become interested in how these experiences reveal aspects of identity that have been overlooked.

An exception becomes meaningful when it is explored, connected with other experiences and incorporated into a richer story.

----

=== Acts of resistance ===

Many unique outcomes involve resisting the influence of a problem.

Resistance may include:

* speaking despite fear
* attending school despite anxiety
* apologising despite anger
* asking for help despite shame
* continuing despite hopelessness

These actions reveal preferred values and intentions.

Rather than viewing resistance simply as coping, Narrative Therapy understands it as evidence of preferred identity.

----

=== Sparkling moments ===

[[Michael White]] occasionally described unique outcomes as "sparkling moments" because they shine through dominant stories.

These moments often surprise both the therapist and the person.

Initially they may seem ordinary or insignificant.

Through careful exploration they become increasingly meaningful and begin influencing how people understand themselves.

----

=== Linking experiences ===

One unique outcome rarely changes a person's identity.

Therapeutic change occurs by connecting multiple unique outcomes into a coherent narrative.

Narrative therapists therefore ask:

* Has something similar happened before?
* Who else has noticed this quality?
* When else has this value appeared?
* How do these experiences fit together?

Linking experiences transforms isolated moments into preferred stories.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Without unique outcomes, therapy risks remaining focused on problems.

Unique outcomes provide evidence that the dominant story does not fully explain the person's life.

They create opportunities to:

* strengthen agency
* reconnect with values
* broaden identity
* increase hope
* develop preferred stories
* imagine different futures

Narrative Therapy therefore treats unique outcomes as beginning points rather than end points.

The therapist's task is not simply to notice them but to help people understand their significance.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A university student repeatedly describes herself as lacking confidence.

During conversation she remembers volunteering to present a group project despite feeling nervous.

Initially she dismisses this as "just luck."

Further exploration reveals preparation, determination and a commitment to supporting her classmates.

This single event becomes the first unique outcome in a developing preferred story organised around courage and responsibility.

----

== Clinical example ==

A young person experiencing severe social anxiety reports attending a friend's birthday party for thirty minutes.

Although they describe the experience as unsuccessful because they left early, the therapist becomes interested in the decision to attend at all.

Through conversation the young person recognises that attending reflected determination, hope and a desire for connection.

This unique outcome becomes linked with previous occasions when anxiety did not completely determine behaviour, contributing to a richer preferred story.

----

== Core insight ==

Unique outcomes are not important because they are unusual.

They are important because they reveal aspects of people's lives that dominant problem stories have overlooked.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Which problem story currently dominates?
* Have any exceptions already been mentioned?
* Which strengths have been overlooked?
* Which relationships may recognise different stories?
* What opportunities exist for exploring agency?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* Has there been a time when the problem expected one thing but something different happened?
* What made that possible?
* What did you do differently?
* What does this tell you about yourself?
* Which values were guiding your actions?
* Who else has seen this side of you?
* Has something similar happened before?
* How might these experiences fit together?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Which unique outcomes emerged?
* Which values became visible?
* How did these experiences challenge the dominant story?
* Which conversations could help connect these experiences?
* How might these moments contribute to a preferred story?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Externalising]]
* [[Problem-saturated story]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Re-authoring]]
* [[Narrative identity]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Unique outcome development|Exploring unique outcomes]]
* [[Re-authoring conversations]]
* [[Externalising conversation]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Unique outcome questions|Unique Outcome Questions]]
* [[Landscape of Identity Questions]]
* [[Landscape of Action Questions]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. New York: W. W. Norton.

----

== Notes ==

Unique outcomes are not therapeutic goals in themselves. Their significance lies in the opportunities they provide for developing richer accounts of identity. Narrative therapists carefully explore and connect these experiences so that they become part of preferred stories rather than remaining isolated exceptions. As these stories develop, unique outcomes help shift people's understanding of themselves from identities organised by problems towards identities organised by values, commitments and relationships.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Unique outcome questions

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Unique outcome questions =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Unique outcome questions are narrative questions that explore moments when the problem was less powerful, absent, resisted or interrupted.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 4 — TECHNIQUES AND INTERVENTIONS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Unique outcome questions are used in narrative therapy to identify experiences that do not fit the dominant problem story.

A unique outcome may be a moment when the person responded differently, when the problem had less influence, when a relationship was different, or when a preferred value became visible.

These moments may be small and easily overlooked.

For example, if the dominant story is “I always give in to anxiety”, a unique outcome might be a moment when the person went out despite anxiety being present.

If the family story is “we only argue”, a unique outcome might be a moment when people paused, used humour, softened their tone or repaired afterwards.

Unique outcome questions help bring these moments into attention so they can be developed into alternative and preferred stories.

== Purpose of this technique ==

The purpose of this technique is to loosen the dominance of the problem story.

Unique outcome questions help people:

* notice exceptions to totalising descriptions
* identify acts of agency and resistance
* connect actions to values
* develop alternative stories
* strengthen preferred identity
* recognise moments of care, repair or hope
* imagine future possibilities

== When to use this technique ==

Use unique outcome questions when:

* the problem story feels totalising
* the person uses “always”, “never” or “nothing”
* small moments of difference appear
* the therapist notices an exception
* the family needs hope without false reassurance
* re-authoring conversations are beginning
* the therapist wants to develop preferred stories

== How to use this technique ==

Listen for exceptions, differences, contradictions and small acts of resistance.

Ask about these moments in detail.

Explore:

* what happened
* what the person did
* what was different
* who noticed
* what helped
* what this says about values
* whether this has happened before
* what it could make possible in the future

Do not rush. The value of unique outcome questions comes from careful development.

== Example prompts / questions ==

* Can you tell me about a time when you prevented this problem from oppressing you?
* Have there been times when you have been able to get the best of the problem?
* Were there times when the problem could have taken over, but you kept it out of the picture?
* When was the problem less powerful?
* What was different about that moment?
* What did you do first?
* How did the other person respond?
* What did you do next?
* Who noticed this difference?
* What helped this happen?
* What does this say about what matters to you?
* Has anything like this happened before?
* What might this make possible next time?

== Non-clinical example ==

A person says:

“I never manage to say no.”

The therapist asks whether there has been even one small time when they protected their own time.

The person remembers declining an invitation when they were exhausted.

This becomes a unique outcome that can be explored as self-respect and care for wellbeing.

== Clinical example ==

A family says:

“We always shout.”

The therapist asks whether there was a recent moment when anger was present but shouting did not happen.

The family remembers one evening when the young person left the room and returned later, and the parent chose not to follow immediately.

This moment is explored as restraint, care and a wish to avoid hurting the relationship.

== What this technique can open up ==

Unique outcome questions can open:

* alternative story development
* preferred story development
* re-authoring conversations
* scaffolding conversations
* landscape of action and identity mapping
* recognition of values and commitments
* future action planning
* therapeutic documents or witnessing

== Risks, cautions and ethical considerations ==

Unique outcome questions should not be used to minimise the problem.

The therapist should not imply that because an exception exists, the problem should be easy to solve.

Some people may feel pressured by exception questions if they are used too quickly.

The therapist should first honour the real effects of the problem before developing unique outcomes.

== Questions before using this technique ==

* Has the problem story been heard enough?
* Is the person ready to explore exceptions?
* Could this feel like minimising?
* What small differences have appeared?
* What values may be visible in these moments?
* Who might have witnessed the unique outcome?

== Questions during use ==

* Is the person recognising the moment as meaningful?
* Am I developing the unique outcome enough?
* Am I moving too quickly towards positivity?
* What values are emerging?
* What story could this moment support?
* Should I ask landscape of action or landscape of meaning questions next?

== Questions after use ==

* What unique outcome became visible?
* Did I connect it to values and identity?
* Did I avoid minimising the problem?
* What alternative story could grow from this?
* Who could witness this story?
* What method should follow?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]
[[Systemic epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Brief Solution Focused]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Unique outcomes]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Problem-saturated story#Dominant stories|Dominant story]]
[[Problem-saturated story]]
[[Thickening the plot]]
[[Preferred story#Agency|Agency]]
[[Resistance]]
[[Difference that makes a difference]]
[[Stories lived vs stories told]]

== Related methods ==

[[Unique outcome development]]
[[Scaffolding conversations]]
[[Landscape of action and identity mapping]]
[[Re-authoring conversations]]
[[Alternative story development]]
[[Preferred story development]]
[[Externalising conversation]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Brief Solution Focused pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]
[[Steve de Shazer]]
[[Insoo Kim Berg]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. Norton.
* de Shazer, S. (1985). ''Keys to Solution in Brief Therapy''. Norton.

== Notes / source material ==

Unique outcome questions are most useful when followed by questions that thicken meaning.

A unique outcome becomes therapeutically significant when it is connected to values, intentions, relationships and preferred identity.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Thickening the plot

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Thickening the plot =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Thickening the plot means developing a richer and more detailed alternative story about a person, family or relationship.

In narrative therapy, it involves expanding small moments of difference into a fuller account of values, skills, relationships and preferred identity.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 2 — CONCEPTS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Thickening the plot is a narrative therapy concept. It is also described in the literature as ''thick description'' — a term borrowed from anthropology — with problem stories described as "thin" and enriched preferred stories as "thick".

Problem stories often become thin. They reduce people to narrow descriptions, such as “angry”, “anxious”, “defiant”, “controlling” or “broken”.

A thin story leaves out complexity, context, values, intentions, history, resistance, relationships and alternative meanings.

Thickening the plot means developing a richer story by exploring unique outcomes, values, skills, witnesses, history and future possibilities.

For example, if a young person is described as “always angry”, a therapist may notice moments where anger was connected to protection, fairness, loyalty or care. These moments can be explored and connected so that a thicker story emerges.

The aim is not to create a falsely positive story. It is to make the story more complete, dignifying and useful.

== Supporting concepts ==

This concept incorporates the following supporting concepts, previously described under ''Thick description'':

=== Rich description ===

Rich description involves exploring experiences in sufficient detail to understand their significance. Rather than accepting brief answers, therapists remain curious about what happened, how it happened, who was involved, what made it possible and why it mattered. Rich descriptions help preferred stories become more vivid and believable.

=== Linking experiences ===

One meaningful event rarely changes identity. Narrative therapists therefore connect multiple experiences that express similar values or commitments — asking when else this has happened, who else has seen this quality, and what other memories connect with this experience. Connecting experiences creates continuity within preferred stories.

=== Meaning making ===

Narrative Therapy is interested not only in what happened but in what it means. The therapist explores why an experience was important, what values were expressed, and what it reveals about the person and their relationships. Meaning transforms events into identity-shaping experiences.

=== Story development ===

As stories become thicker they begin influencing identity, relationships, future choices, confidence, hope and resilience. Preferred stories therefore become increasingly available during future challenges.

== Why this concept matters ==

Thickening the plot matters because people can become trapped in thin descriptions.

A thin problem story can limit how people see themselves and what others expect from them.

A thicker story can restore complexity, dignity and agency.

It helps people ask:

* What else is true?
* What values are present?
* What skills have been used?
* Who has witnessed another version of this person?
* What history supports the preferred story?
* How can this story become more available in daily life?

== Non-clinical example ==

A student says:

“I am bad at presentations.”

A thicker story may include:

* they feel anxious because they care about doing well
* they once spoke confidently in a small group
* they prepare carefully
* they are better when they know the audience
* they value being understood

The story becomes more detailed than “I am bad at presentations”.

== Clinical example ==

A child is described as “attention-seeking”.

A narrative conversation may thicken a different story by exploring times when the child sought comfort, connection, recognition or safety.

The therapist may ask who has noticed the child being caring, funny, thoughtful or protective.

Over time, the story may shift from “attention-seeking” to “seeking connection and trying to be noticed when feeling alone”.

== Core insight ==

Thickening the plot means making identity richer.

It helps people move from thin problem labels towards fuller stories of values, relationships, skills and preferred ways of being.

== Questions before a session ==

* What thin story is dominating?
* What details are missing?
* What unique outcomes could be developed?
* What values might be hidden in the story?
* Who could witness a different version of the person?
* How can I avoid forcing a positive story?

== Questions during a session ==

* Can you tell me more about that moment?
* What did that say about what matters to you?
* Who else noticed this side of you?
* Has this quality appeared before?
* What name would you give to this different story?
* What would help this story grow stronger?
* What future would fit better with this story?

== Questions after a session ==

* Did I help thicken the preferred story?
* Did I connect unique outcomes to values and relationships?
* Did I ask enough detail?
* Did I move too quickly from problem to preferred story?
* Who could witness or support the thicker story?
* What therapeutic document could help preserve it?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Problem-saturated story#Dominant stories|Dominant story]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Unique outcomes]]
[[Absent but implicit]]
[[Externalising]]
[[Narrative identity]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Meaning-making]]

== Related methods ==

[[Re-authoring conversations]]
[[Unique outcome development]]
[[Alternative story development]]
[[Preferred story development]]
[[Narrative letter writing]]
[[Outsider witness practice]]
[[Definitional ceremony]]
[[Therapeutic documents]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Thickening questions]]
[[Unique outcome questions]]
[[Re-authoring questions]]
[[Preferred story questions]]
[[Witnessing questions]]
[[Absent but implicit questions]]
[[Externalising questions]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Power and culture pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. Norton.
* Denborough, D. (2008). ''Collective Narrative Practice''. Dulwich Centre Publications.

== Notes / source material ==

Thickening the plot is not about replacing a negative story with a simple positive one.

It is about developing a richer, more complex and more dignifying account that is grounded in lived experience.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor SystemicWiki Feedback Form]

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Therapeutic letter

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Therapeutic letter =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

A therapeutic letter is a written document that extends the therapy conversation by recording meanings, questions, values, commitments and preferred stories that emerged in a session.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 4 — TECHNIQUES AND INTERVENTIONS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Therapeutic letters are used in [[Narrative]] Therapy and systemic practice to strengthen and continue therapeutic conversations beyond the session.

A letter may summarise what was discussed, reflect the person's own words, honour acts of resistance, ask further questions, document preferred identity claims, or invite the person to notice future developments.

Therapeutic letters are not ordinary clinical summaries.

They are carefully written documents that aim to support meaning, memory and preferred change.

They often use the person's own language and may be written to individuals, couples, families, groups or networks.

== Purpose of this technique ==

The purpose of a therapeutic letter is to help important meanings from therapy remain available after the session.

It can strengthen preferred stories, honour values, document change, invite reflection and support continuity between meetings.

A therapeutic letter may also help people feel witnessed and taken seriously.

== When to use this technique ==

Use this technique when:

* a session has produced important new meanings
* a preferred story is beginning to emerge
* the person wants something to return to between sessions
* values, resistance or commitments need documenting
* therapy needs continuity between meetings
* a family or network may benefit from shared reflection

== How to use this technique ==

Write the letter in clear, respectful and experience-near language.

Use the person's own words where possible.

Avoid professional jargon unless it is useful to the person.

Include what stood out, what was valued, what was resisted, what questions remain, and what possibilities may be developing.

Check whether the person wants the letter, who it should be addressed to, and whether it should be shared with anyone else.

== Example prompts / questions ==

A therapeutic letter might include phrases such as:

* "I was struck by the way you described..."
* "You gave a name to something important when you said..."
* "I wondered whether this might connect with..."
* "The problem seemed to have less influence when..."
* "Your commitment to... appeared strongly in the conversation."
* "I wonder what you might notice before we next meet."

== Non-clinical example ==

A mentor writes a letter to a student after a difficult review meeting.

The letter records the student's persistence, the questions they are still carrying, and the small steps they decided to try before the next meeting.

== Clinical example ==

After a family session, the therapist writes a letter summarising how the family named "the blame cycle", noticed moments of care, and identified a shared wish for calmer conversations.

The letter helps the family remember the conversation when conflict begins to return.

== What this technique can open up ==

Therapeutic letters can open up:

* continuity between sessions
* reflection after therapy
* preferred story development
* recognition of values and commitments
* documentation of resistance
* shared family or network conversations
* further questions for future sessions

== Risks, cautions and ethical considerations ==

Therapeutic letters can feel exposing if shared without consent.

The therapist should be careful about confidentiality, audience, tone and language.

Letters should not impose meaning or overstate change.

They should be collaborative, respectful and accountable to the person's own words.

== Questions before using this technique ==

* What purpose would a letter serve?
* Does the person want a written document?
* Who should the letter be addressed to?
* What language belongs to the person?
* Could anything in the letter feel exposing or unsafe?

== Questions during use ==

* Am I using the person's own words?
* Am I documenting meaning rather than giving expert judgement?
* Am I honouring complexity?
* Am I avoiding jargon?
* Am I leaving space for further reflection?

== Questions after use ==

* Was the letter useful to the person or family?
* Did it support preferred meanings?
* Did it invite further reflection?
* Did anything need correcting or clarifying?
* How might the letter shape the next session?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative Therapy]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Therapeutic documents]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Preferred story#Agency|Agency]]
[[Resistance]]
[[Absent but implicit#Values|Values]]
[[Absent but implicit#Commitments|Commitments]]
[[Witnessing questions|Witnessing]]

== Related methods ==

[[Narrative letter writing]]
[[Therapeutic documents]]
[[Preferred story development]]
[[Re-authoring conversations]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[David Denborough]]
[[Alice Morgan]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* White, M. (1995). ''Re-Authoring Lives''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.

== Notes / source material ==

Therapeutic letters are most useful when they extend the person's own meanings rather than replacing them with professional interpretation.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Therapeutic documents

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Therapeutic documents =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Therapeutic documents are written, visual or symbolic records created in therapy to support preferred stories, values, commitments, changes and reflections.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 3 — METHODS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Therapeutic documents are commonly associated with narrative therapy, especially the work of [[Michael White]] and [[David Epston]].

They can include letters, certificates, declarations, lists, drawings, timelines, maps, poems, stories, agreements, invitations or other documents that preserve and develop meanings from therapy.

A therapeutic document is different from a clinical report. It is not mainly about recording symptoms, risk or intervention. Its purpose is to support the person or family to remember, strengthen and live closer to preferred stories.

Therapeutic documents can help make change more visible and portable. They allow the therapeutic conversation to continue outside the room.

== Purpose of this method ==

The purpose of this method is to give preferred meanings a form that can be revisited.

Therapeutic documents can:

* preserve important conversations
* strengthen alternative stories
* honour values and commitments
* record acts of resistance
* support identity development
* mark endings, transitions or achievements
* help families remember new understandings
* create a witness to change

== When to use this method ==

Use this method when:

* a preferred story is emerging
* a young person or family wants something to remember
* therapy is ending
* a significant moment needs marking
* a person has taken a meaningful stand against a problem
* values or commitments need strengthening
* the family may benefit from a shared written reflection
* the therapist wants to extend the conversation beyond the session

== How this method works ==

The therapist creates or co-creates a document that captures important meanings from therapy.

The document may include:

* the person’s own words
* values that became visible
* moments of change
* acts of resistance
* preferred identity descriptions
* questions for reflection
* commitments or hopes
* names for emerging stories
* acknowledgements from witnesses

Therapeutic documents should feel personal, respectful and meaningful to the person or family.

== Non-clinical example ==

A mentor creates a short written note for a student after a difficult year.

The note records how the student kept going, asked for help, repaired relationships and continued to care about their future.

The document helps the student remember a story of persistence rather than only struggle.

== Clinical example ==

A young person has been working on standing up to anxiety.

The therapist creates a certificate or letter that names the young person’s acts of courage, the tricks anxiety uses, and the ways the young person has begun to respond differently.

The document can be kept, shared with carers, or used as a reminder during difficult moments.

== Step-by-step process ==

# Identify the purpose of the document.
# Decide whether it will be written by the therapist, co-written, or created by the person or family.
# Use the person’s own language where possible.
# Name the preferred story or value being supported.
# Include specific examples from therapy or daily life.
# Avoid clinical jargon unless it is meaningful to the person.
# Keep the tone respectful and dignifying.
# Ask whether the person wants to keep, share or revise the document.
# Consider who might witness or support the document.
# Review its usefulness later if appropriate.

== Questions before using this method ==

* What preferred story needs preserving?
* Who is the document for?
* What form would be meaningful?
* What words or phrases did the person use?
* What values should be honoured?
* Could the document be experienced as too formal, too certain or too exposing?

== Questions during use ==

* What would be useful to remember from today?
* What words should we use for this story?
* Who might appreciate knowing about this change?
* Would you like this written down?
* What should be included?
* What should be left out?
* How would you like to use this document?

== Questions after use ==

* Did the document feel meaningful to the person or family?
* Did it preserve their language and dignity?
* Did it support the preferred story?
* Did it avoid professional over-interpretation?
* Was it shared only with consent?
* Did it continue the therapeutic conversation outside the session?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Alternative story]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Unique outcomes]]
[[Thickening the plot]]
[[Absent but implicit]]
[[Stories lived vs stories told]]
[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]
[[Meaning-making]]
[[Relational responsibility]]
[[Witnessing questions|Witnessing]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Therapeutic letter|Therapeutic letter questions]]
[[Witnessing questions]]
[[Re-authoring questions]]
[[Unique outcome questions]]
[[Thickening questions]]
[[Preferred story questions]]
[[Reflective comments]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]
[[Power and culture pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]
[[David Denborough]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* White, M. (1995). ''Re-authoring Lives: Interviews and Essays''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Epston, D. (1994). Extending the conversation. ''Family Therapy Networker, 18''(6), 31–37.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Denborough, D. (2008). ''Collective Narrative Practice''. Dulwich Centre Publications.

== Notes / source material ==

Therapeutic documents should be created ethically and collaboratively.

They should not become hidden clinical interpretations. They should support the person’s own meanings, values and preferred stories.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Subjugated knowledge

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Subjugated Knowledge =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Subjugated knowledge refers to the lived knowledge, experiences, abilities and understandings that have been overlooked, dismissed or devalued by dominant stories and systems of knowledge. Narrative Therapy seeks to recover this knowledge as a foundation for preferred identities and richer life stories.

----

== Expanded definition ==

The concept of subjugated knowledge originates in the work of the French philosopher '''Michel Foucault''', who argued that societies privilege certain forms of knowledge while marginalising others.

Professional, institutional and scientific knowledge often becomes accepted as objective truth, while the knowledge gained through everyday experience may be ignored or considered less valuable.

Narrative Therapy challenges this hierarchy.

Rather than positioning the therapist as the expert on people's lives, Narrative Therapy assumes that people possess valuable local knowledge about themselves, their relationships and the ways they have responded to difficulties.

Much of this knowledge becomes hidden because dominant stories focus attention elsewhere.

For example, a person who has lived with depression for many years may possess extensive knowledge about:

* recognising early warning signs
* maintaining important relationships
* surviving difficult periods
* protecting hope
* finding meaning

Yet this knowledge may remain invisible because conversations focus primarily on symptoms or deficits.

Narrative Therapy seeks to recover and honour this knowledge.

Rather than asking:

''"What is wrong with you?"''

the therapist becomes curious about:

* What have you learned through these experiences?
* What knowledge have you developed that others may not recognise?
* How has this knowledge helped you?
* What does it reveal about your values and abilities?

Recovering subjugated knowledge allows people to become recognised not simply as recipients of therapy but as authors and contributors of valuable knowledge.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Many people enter therapy believing that professionals know more about their lives than they do themselves.

Narrative Therapy respectfully challenges this assumption.

By recognising subjugated knowledge, therapists acknowledge that people have already developed considerable expertise through living their own lives.

This shift changes the therapeutic relationship.

Rather than expert and patient, therapy becomes a collaborative exploration between people bringing different forms of knowledge.

Recognising subjugated knowledge helps:

* strengthen agency
* reduce dependence upon expert opinion
* recover forgotten strengths
* support preferred identities
* challenge deficit-based narratives
* value lived experience

This principle is fundamental to Narrative Therapy's collaborative and non-pathologising stance.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A father repeatedly describes himself as "not good with emotions."

During conversation he explains how he has spent years comforting his daughter before school, recognising when she becomes overwhelmed and adapting family routines to reduce stress.

Although he has never considered these actions as expertise, they reveal sophisticated relational knowledge developed through lived experience.

Recognising this subjugated knowledge helps him see himself differently.

----

== Clinical example ==

A young woman referred for treatment of an eating disorder speaks about years of carefully noticing situations that increase self-critical thoughts.

Initially she describes this only as part of her illness.

The therapist becomes curious about the detailed knowledge she has developed regarding triggers, relationships, environments and protective factors.

These observations become recognised as valuable knowledge rather than symptoms alone.

This shift supports a preferred identity organised around wisdom, awareness and self-understanding rather than illness.

----

== Core insight ==

People know far more about their own lives than dominant stories often allow them to recognise.

Therapeutic conversations recover this knowledge and give it the recognition it deserves.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Which forms of local knowledge may have been overlooked?
* Where has expert knowledge become privileged?
* Which experiences suggest hidden expertise?
* How might the person's own knowledge be foregrounded?
* Which assumptions should the therapist question?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* What have you learned through living with this experience?
* What knowledge do you now possess that you didn't have before?
* How has this knowledge helped you survive?
* What would others learn from your experience?
* What strengths have you developed?
* What wisdom has remained unnoticed?
* If someone else faced this situation, what advice might you offer?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Which forms of subjugated knowledge became visible?
* How did recognising this knowledge influence identity?
* Which preferred stories became stronger?
* What expertise deserves further exploration?
* How might this knowledge contribute to future conversations?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Dominant discourse]]
* [[Cultural narratives]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Narrative identity]]
* [[Resistance]]
* [[Absent but implicit]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Re-authoring conversations]]
* [[Externalising conversation]]
* [[Re-membering conversation]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Landscape of Identity Questions]]
* [[Unique outcome questions|Unique Outcome Questions]]
* [[Therapeutic letter]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michel Foucault]]
* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* Foucault, M. (1980). ''Power/Knowledge''. New York: Pantheon Books.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M. (2000). ''Reflections on Narrative Practice''.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.

----

== Notes ==

Subjugated Knowledge is one of the key philosophical concepts underpinning Narrative Therapy. Influenced by [[Michel Foucault]]'s critique of power and knowledge, it reminds therapists that professional expertise should never eclipse the expertise people develop through living their own lives. By recovering and valuing this local knowledge, Narrative Therapy strengthens agency, supports collaborative practice and creates opportunities for richer preferred stories to emerge. The concept also provides an important philosophical bridge between Dominant Discourse, Cultural Narratives and [[Externalising]], explaining why Narrative therapists remain cautious about expert-driven explanations that overshadow lived experience.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Statement of position map

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Statement of position map =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

The statement of position map is a narrative questioning structure that helps people name a problem, evaluate its effects, explain their position and identify preferred responses.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 4 — TECHNIQUES AND INTERVENTIONS]]

== Expanded definition ==

The statement of position map is associated with [[Michael White]]'s maps of narrative practice.

It offers a structured way to help people take a position in relation to a problem and its effects.

The map usually includes four movements:

# Naming or describing the problem.
# Mapping the effects of the problem.
# Evaluating the effects.
# Justifying the evaluation by linking it to values, hopes or commitments.

This structure helps people move from describing a problem to taking an ethical and personal position on what the problem is doing in their lives.

It can prepare the ground for resistance, agency and preferred story development.

== Purpose of this technique ==

The purpose of the statement of position map is to support people to evaluate the problem's effects and clarify where they stand.

It helps separate the person from the problem while also inviting agency, values and commitment.

It is especially useful when people feel overwhelmed, confused or unsure whether they are allowed to object to the problem's influence.

== When to use this technique ==

Use this technique when:

* a problem has been externalised
* the problem's effects need mapping
* the person is ready to evaluate those effects
* values or commitments need to be made visible
* the therapist wants to move from description to position
* the conversation needs structure and clarity

== How to use this technique ==

Start by naming the problem in language that fits the person.

Ask about the effects of the problem on life, relationships, identity or future possibilities.

Invite the person to evaluate these effects: Are they okay with them? Do they object? Would they prefer something different?

Then ask why they take that position.

The justification often reveals values, hopes, commitments and preferred identity.

== Example prompts / questions ==

* What name would you give this problem?
* What effects has it had on your life?
* What has it been getting in the way of?
* Are you okay with these effects?
* What do you think about what the problem has been doing?
* Why do you take that position?
* What does your position say about what matters to you?
* What would you prefer instead?

== Non-clinical example ==

A student names "the pressure" as the problem.

They map its effects on sleep, confidence and friendships.

When asked whether they are okay with these effects, they say no. Their reason is that learning and friendship matter to them.

The statement of position map reveals values that can guide next steps.

== Clinical example ==

A family names "the blame cycle" as the problem.

They map its effects on trust, closeness and communication.

The family evaluates the effects as harmful and explains that they want more respect and repair.

This creates a shared position against the cycle rather than against one another.

== What this technique can open up ==

The statement of position map can open up:

* externalising conversations
* problem influence mapping
* values exploration
* resistance and agency
* preferred story development
* therapeutic documentation
* future action planning

== Risks, cautions and ethical considerations ==

The therapist should not pressure the person to take a position before they are ready.

Some people may feel conflicted about the problem's effects, especially when the problem has also served protective functions.

The therapist should allow ambivalence and complexity.

Evaluation should be grounded in the person's own values, not the therapist's assumptions.

== Questions before using this technique ==

* Has the problem been named in experience-near language?
* Is the person ready to evaluate the problem's effects?
* What areas of life should be mapped?
* How can I invite position without pressure?
* What values may be hidden in the person's evaluation?

== Questions during use ==

* Is the person separating themselves from the problem?
* Are the effects becoming clear?
* Is evaluation emerging naturally?
* What values support the person's position?
* Are complexity and ambivalence being respected?

== Questions after use ==

* What position did the person take?
* What values or commitments became visible?
* What preferred response might follow?
* Should this position be documented?
* What method could develop the preferred story further?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative Therapy]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Externalising|Externalisation]]
[[Externalising#Mapping the influence of the problem|Problem influence]]
[[Externalising#Mapping the influence of the person|Person influence]]
[[Absent but implicit#Values|Values]]
[[Preferred story#Agency|Agency]]
[[Resistance]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Externalising#Problem as separate from the person|Problem as separate from person]]

== Related methods ==

[[Externalising conversation]]
[[Problem influence mapping]]
[[Person influence mapping]]
[[Values exploration]]
[[Preferred story development]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.

== Notes / source material ==

The statement of position map helps people move from problem description to ethical evaluation and preferred response. It should remain collaborative and grounded in the person's own values.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Resistance

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Resistance =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Resistance refers to the countless ways people respond to, oppose or refuse the influence of problems, oppression and dominant narratives. In Narrative Therapy, resistance is understood as evidence of agency, values and preferred identity rather than simply resilience or coping.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Resistance is one of the most important yet often overlooked concepts in Narrative Therapy. [[Michael White]] argued that people are never passive recipients of problems. Even when difficulties appear overwhelming, people continue responding in ways that protect what matters to them.

These responses may be obvious or almost invisible. They can involve actions, thoughts, emotions, relationships or decisions that prevent the problem from completely determining a person's life.

Examples include:

* speaking despite fear
* attending school despite anxiety
* protecting a sibling despite feeling overwhelmed
* asking for help despite shame
* maintaining hope during depression
* refusing violence or abuse
* preserving dignity in the face of discrimination

From a Narrative perspective, these are not simply coping strategies.

They are acts of resistance.

Resistance demonstrates that people continue acting according to their values even when problems attempt to organise their lives differently.

Narrative therapists therefore become highly attentive to moments of resistance because they reveal preferred identities that have not been erased by the problem.

Rather than asking:

''"Why didn't the problem completely take over?"''

therapy becomes curious about:

''"What enabled you to resist?"''

''"What does this tell us about what matters to you?"''

''"What kind of person was present in that moment?"''

These conversations transform resistance from an unnoticed survival strategy into a foundation for re-authoring preferred stories.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

People frequently arrive in therapy believing that the problem has completely defeated them.

Narrative Therapy assumes this is never entirely true.

Even in situations of significant distress, there are almost always examples of resistance.

Recognising these responses helps people reconnect with:

* agency
* hope
* dignity
* courage
* preferred values
* preferred identities

Resistance therefore provides one of the strongest bridges between [[Externalising]] and Preferred Stories.

Rather than focusing exclusively on suffering, Narrative Therapy also asks how people have responded to suffering.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A university student repeatedly describes herself as "giving up easily."

During conversation she remembers continuing to attend lectures despite believing she would fail.

Initially she dismisses this as insignificant.

Further exploration reveals that she continued because education remained deeply important to her.

What first appeared to be an ordinary decision becomes recognised as an act of perseverance and resistance against self-doubt.

----

== Clinical example ==

A young woman referred following years of emotional abuse describes herself as "weak."

As therapy develops she recalls secretly maintaining contact with supportive friends, protecting younger siblings during arguments and continuing to imagine a different future.

Although these actions felt small at the time, they demonstrate repeated resistance against the effects of abuse.

Together these experiences become central to a preferred story organised around courage, loyalty and hope rather than weakness.

----

== Core insight ==

People are never defined solely by what has happened to them.

They are also defined by how they have responded.

Resistance reveals that preferred identities continue to exist even under the greatest pressure.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Where might resistance already be occurring?
* Which responses have been overlooked?
* Which values appear protected through these responses?
* How might the conversation strengthen agency?
* Which preferred identities may emerge?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* How did you stop the problem from taking over completely?
* What kept you going?
* What were you protecting?
* What mattered enough for you to continue?
* What does this response tell you about yourself?
* Have there been other occasions when you responded similarly?
* Who else has recognised this quality in you?
* How does this fit with the person you prefer to be?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Which acts of resistance became visible?
* Which values emerged most clearly?
* How did resistance contribute to preferred identity?
* Which experiences deserve further exploration?
* How can these stories continue developing?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Externalising]]
* [[Unique outcomes]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Problem-saturated story]]
* [[Absent but implicit]]
* [[Narrative identity]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Externalising conversation]]
* [[Unique outcome development|Exploring unique outcomes]]
* [[Re-authoring conversations]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Relative Influence Questions]]
* [[Unique outcome questions|Unique Outcome Questions]]
* [[Landscape of Identity Questions]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]
* [[Michel Foucault]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M. (2000). ''Reflections on Narrative Practice''.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Foucault, M. (1980). ''Power/Knowledge''. New York: Pantheon Books.

----

== Notes ==

Resistance occupies a central position within Narrative Therapy because it reframes people from passive recipients of problems to active responders. Every act of resistance—however small—provides evidence of values, intentions and preferred identities that problems have been unable to erase. Recognising and richly describing these acts allows therapists to connect them into preferred stories through re-authoring conversations. Resistance is therefore not simply an outcome of therapy; it is often the very starting point from which therapeutic change begins.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Re-membering

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Re-membering =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Re-membering is a Narrative Therapy practice that reconnects people with significant relationships that support their preferred identities, while reconsidering the influence of relationships that no longer serve their preferred way of living.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Re-membering is one of the distinctive practices developed by [[Michael White]]. Drawing on the metaphor of a "membership club of life", it invites people to reflect on who belongs within the community of relationships that shape their identity.

Rather than viewing identity as something created independently, Narrative Therapy understands identity as being continually influenced by the people whose voices, values and relationships remain significant throughout life.

Some relationships strengthen preferred identities by recognising people's abilities, values and commitments. Other relationships may reinforce problem-saturated stories through criticism, rejection or unrealistic expectations.

Re-membering conversations help people reconsider these influences.

The aim is not to erase difficult relationships or idealise positive ones. Instead, therapy becomes curious about which relationships deserve a stronger place within the person's ongoing life story and how these relationships continue influencing identity.

Re-membering also creates opportunities to reconnect with people who have died, become geographically distant or are no longer physically present but whose influence continues to provide strength, guidance and meaning.

----

== Supporting concepts ==

This concept incorporates the following supporting concepts:

* Membership of life
* Significant relationships
* Reciprocal contribution
* Continuing bonds

=== Membership of life ===

Michael White described identity as developing within a "club of life".

Membership is not fixed.

People continually move closer to or further away from particular relationships as their lives develop.

Therapy explores:

* Who belongs in your club of life?
* Who has earned an important place?
* Who would you like to move closer?
* Whose influence would you like to reduce?

These conversations help people become intentional about the relationships that shape their identities.

----

=== Significant relationships ===

Narrative Therapy is interested in relationships that recognise and strengthen preferred identities.

These relationships may include:

* parents
* grandparents
* siblings
* friends
* teachers
* mentors
* colleagues
* partners
* community members

The significance of a relationship depends not upon its duration but upon its contribution to the person's preferred story.

----

=== Reciprocal contribution ===

Re-membering is not simply about asking who has influenced the person.

It also explores how the person has influenced others.

Questions may include:

* What difference have you made in their life?
* What would they say they learned from you?
* How have you contributed to this relationship?
* What might they value about knowing you?

Considering reciprocal influence helps people recognise themselves as active contributors within relationships rather than passive recipients of support.

----

=== Continuing bonds ===

Relationships continue influencing people even after death, separation or significant life changes.

Narrative Therapy acknowledges that loved ones may remain present through:

* memories
* values
* traditions
* shared stories
* everyday practices

Re-membering conversations explore how these continuing bonds can support preferred identities without requiring people to "move on" or leave important relationships behind.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Many people experiencing psychological distress describe themselves as isolated or disconnected.

Re-membering conversations reconnect people with relationships that reflect their preferred identities.

These conversations often:

* strengthen belonging
* increase hope
* reinforce values
* expand identity
* reduce loneliness
* acknowledge important relationships
* support resilience

Rather than viewing identity as something created individually, Re-membering highlights the relational foundations of human experience.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A newly qualified teacher begins doubting her ability after a difficult first term.

During therapy she remembers a former teacher who consistently described her as thoughtful, creative and determined.

Reflecting upon that relationship helps reconnect her with qualities that had become overshadowed by recent self-doubt.

She realises that this teacher's influence continues shaping how she approaches her profession.

----

== Clinical example ==

A young man referred following bereavement speaks warmly about his grandfather, who died several years earlier.

As therapy develops, he recognises that many of the values he hopes to live by—including kindness, patience and generosity—were learned through that relationship.

Rather than viewing his grandfather as someone lost to the past, Re-membering conversations help him experience that relationship as continuing to influence his identity and everyday decisions.

----

== Core insight ==

People never develop their identities alone.

Preferred identities are continually strengthened through meaningful relationships, both past and present.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Which relationships appear central to the person's identity?
* Whose voices are most influential?
* Which relationships strengthen preferred stories?
* Which relationships reinforce problem-saturated stories?
* How might Re-membering support identity development?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* Who has believed in you?
* Who first recognised these qualities in you?
* What would they say about the person you are becoming?
* What difference have you made in their life?
* Which of their values continue influencing you?
* If they were here today, what might they notice?
* Who deserves a more central place in your club of life?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Which relationships became more significant?
* How did belonging influence the conversation?
* Which preferred identities were strengthened?
* What continuing bonds emerged?
* Which relationships deserve further exploration?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Narrative identity]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Re-authoring]]
* [[Absent but Implicit]]
* [[Outsider witness practice]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Re-membering conversation]]
* [[Re-authoring conversations]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Therapeutic letter]]
* [[Definitional ceremony|Definitional ceremonies]]
* [[Landscape of Identity Questions]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M. (2000). ''Reflections on Narrative Practice''.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.

----

== Notes ==

Re-membering is not about nostalgia or idealising past relationships. It is a therapeutic practice that explores how significant relationships continue shaping identity in the present. By intentionally strengthening relationships that support preferred stories, people develop richer, more connected and more sustainable identities that extend beyond the therapy room.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Re-membering conversation

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Re-membering conversation =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

[[Re-membering]] conversation is a narrative method for reconnecting people with important relationships, figures, values and communities that have shaped their identity.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 3 — METHODS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Re-membering conversations are associated with narrative therapy and the work of [[Michael White]].

The term “re-membering” does not simply mean remembering. It refers to re-organising the membership of a person’s identity story.

People’s identities are shaped by real and remembered relationships. Some people, voices or experiences may continue to influence identity even when they are absent, distant, deceased or no longer physically present.

Re-membering conversations help people explore who has contributed to their life, what these relationships have made possible, what values have been passed on, and how the person might continue to carry these connections in preferred ways.

This method can be especially useful in work involving grief, separation, trauma, migration, identity, belonging, family history or lost connection.

== Purpose of this method ==

The purpose of this method is to help people reconnect with supportive, meaningful or preferred identity relationships.

It can help people:

* feel less alone
* reconnect with values and belonging
* honour important relationships
* develop preferred identity stories
* challenge isolated problem stories
* recognise the influence of people who have supported them
* continue bonds with people who are absent or deceased

== When to use this method ==

Use this method when:

* a person feels isolated from supportive relationships
* grief, loss or separation is present
* identity has become dominated by a problem story
* important relational influences have been forgotten or silenced
* a person wants to honour someone’s influence
* family or cultural history is important
* the therapist wants to strengthen belonging and identity

== How this method works ==

The therapist invites the person to identify significant people, relationships, communities or figures who have shaped their life.

The conversation explores:

* who has contributed to the person’s life
* what the person valued in that relationship
* what the other person may have appreciated about them
* what values were shared
* how the relationship continues to influence the person
* how the person might carry that connection forward
* which voices deserve more membership in the person’s identity story

The method can include living people, deceased people, absent family members, cultural figures, community members, teachers, friends, ancestors, pets or symbolic figures.

== Non-clinical example ==

A person feels they have lost confidence after a difficult period.

Through re-membering conversation, they reconnect with the memory of a teacher who believed in them and encouraged their creativity.

The conversation helps them remember that confidence and creativity were not invented recently; they have a history and a witness.

== Clinical example ==

A young person in care says they feel they do not belong anywhere.

A therapist may ask about people who have noticed good things in them, people who would not be surprised by their strengths, or people whose influence they still carry.

The young person may remember a previous carer, a sibling, a youth worker or a grandparent whose view of them helps challenge the story of being unwanted or alone.

== Step-by-step process ==

# Identify a preferred value, identity or story that needs strengthening.
# Ask who has known or witnessed this part of the person.
# Explore the relationship with that person or community.
# Ask what the person valued in that relationship.
# Ask what the other person may have valued in them.
# Explore what values or qualities were shared.
# Ask how this relationship continues to influence the person.
# Consider how the person wants to carry this connection forward.
# Explore who else belongs in the preferred identity story.
# Document or reflect the conversation if useful.

== Questions before using this method ==

* What relationship or connection may support the preferred story?
* Has the person lost contact with important sources of identity?
* Is grief, separation or belonging central to the work?
* Who may have witnessed the person outside the problem story?
* Is the person ready to reconnect with these memories?
* How can I avoid romanticising difficult relationships?

== Questions during use ==

* Who has known this side of you?
* Who would not be surprised to hear this about you?
* What did this person see in you?
* What did you value about them?
* What do you think they valued about you?
* How does this relationship still live in your life?
* What would you like to carry forward from this connection?

== Questions after use ==

* Did the conversation strengthen belonging or preferred identity?
* Did I avoid idealising the relationship?
* Did I attend to pain and complexity as well as connection?
* What values became clearer?
* What relationship could be explored further?
* Would a letter, document or witnessing practice help preserve this story?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Relational epistemology]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Contextual epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]
[[Contextual]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Relationship stories]]
[[Family scripts]]
[[Life scripts]]
[[Invisible loyalty]]
[[Family ledger]]
[[Narrative identity#Belonging|Belonging]]
[[Meaning-making]]
[[Stories lived vs stories told]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Re-membering questions]]
[[Re-authoring questions]]
[[Relationship story questions]]
[[Genogram questions]]
[[Witnessing questions]]
[[Preferred story questions]]
[[Narrative letter questions]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]
[[Contextual pathway]]
[[Attachment pathway]]
[[Power and culture pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Barbara Myerhoff]]
[[David Denborough]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Monica McGoldrick]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (1997). Narratives of therapists’ lives. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* Myerhoff, B. (1982). Life history among the elderly: Performance, visibility, and remembering. In J. Ruby (Ed.), ''A Crack in the Mirror: Reflexive Perspectives in Anthropology''. University of Pennsylvania Press.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Denborough, D. (2008). ''Collective Narrative Practice''. Dulwich Centre Publications.

== Notes / source material ==

Re-membering conversations should be used with sensitivity.

Important relationships may include both love and pain. The therapist should not assume that remembering a relationship is always comforting. The conversation should allow complexity, choice and emotional safety.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Re-authoring

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Re-authoring =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Re-authoring is the collaborative process of identifying, developing and strengthening alternative stories that more accurately reflect a person's values, intentions, relationships and preferred identity than dominant problem-saturated stories.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Re-authoring is one of the central therapeutic processes within Narrative Therapy. It is based on the understanding that people's lives are organised through stories rather than objective descriptions of reality.

Problem-saturated stories often become dominant because they are repeatedly reinforced through personal experiences, family interactions and wider cultural discourses. Over time, these stories can narrow people's understanding of themselves and limit the possibilities they imagine for their future.

Re-authoring seeks to broaden these understandings by connecting experiences that have previously been overlooked or given little significance.

Rather than inventing new stories, Narrative therapists help people recognise stories that already exist within their lives but have remained marginalised. These stories often emerge through unique outcomes, acts of resistance, meaningful relationships and lived expressions of personal values.

As these experiences become connected, they begin to form richer and more coherent accounts of identity.

Re-authoring therefore represents an ongoing process of identity development rather than a single therapeutic intervention.

----

== Supporting concepts ==

This concept incorporates the following supporting concepts:

* Landscape of Action
* Landscape of Identity
* Identity stories
* Collective stories

=== Landscape of Action ===

The Landscape of Action refers to the sequence of events that make up people's lived experience.

Narrative therapists become curious about:

* what happened
* who was involved
* what the person did
* what they chose
* what happened next

Initially these events may appear ordinary or insignificant.

However, careful exploration often reveals moments that contradict the dominant problem story and provide the foundations for preferred narratives.

The Landscape of Action asks:

''"What happened?"''

----

=== Landscape of Identity ===

The Landscape of Identity explores what these actions reveal about the person.

Rather than focusing solely on behaviour, the therapist asks what actions demonstrate about:

* values
* intentions
* commitments
* hopes
* beliefs
* preferred identity

Questions may include:

* What does this tell you about yourself?
* What values were guiding you?
* What does this suggest about the kind of person you are?
* Why was this important to you?

Moving repeatedly between the Landscape of Action and the Landscape of Identity allows preferred stories to become increasingly rich and meaningful.

----

=== Identity stories ===

Identity stories are the narratives through which people understand who they are.

Narrative Therapy assumes that identity is continuously shaped through experience rather than existing as a fixed characteristic.

Some identity stories become dominant because they are repeatedly reinforced.

Others remain hidden despite reflecting important aspects of a person's life.

Re-authoring strengthens preferred identity stories by connecting multiple experiences into a coherent narrative organised around values rather than problems.

----

=== Collective stories ===

Identity never develops in isolation.

Preferred stories become stronger when they are recognised by significant others, families, communities and cultures.

Narrative Therapy therefore explores questions such as:

* Who already knows this version of you?
* Who has always believed this about you?
* Who would not be surprised by this story?
* Which communities support this preferred identity?

Collective stories help preferred identities continue developing beyond therapy.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Without re-authoring, therapy risks remaining focused upon problems.

Re-authoring shifts attention towards people's lived knowledge, values and relationships.

Rather than helping people simply cope with problems, Narrative Therapy supports them in developing identities organised around:

* courage
* compassion
* perseverance
* hope
* love
* responsibility
* creativity
* justice

These preferred stories become increasingly influential as they are revisited, expanded and witnessed by others.

Over time they begin influencing future decisions, relationships and possibilities.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A newly qualified nurse repeatedly describes herself as "not confident enough."

During conversation she remembers supporting anxious patients, encouraging colleagues and remaining calm during emergencies.

Although she had viewed these as isolated events, they gradually become connected into a preferred story organised around compassion, resilience and competence.

----

== Clinical example ==

A young person referred for depression describes himself as "a burden."

Through re-authoring conversations he recalls continuing to support younger siblings, attending college despite low mood and maintaining close friendships.

These experiences become linked into an emerging identity story organised around commitment, care and perseverance.

Over time this preferred story becomes increasingly influential in how he understands himself and relates to others.

----

== Core insight ==

People's lives always contain more stories than the dominant problem allows them to see.

Re-authoring helps these neglected stories become visible, connected and influential.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Which dominant story currently organises the person's identity?
* Which unique outcomes have already emerged?
* Which values appear most significant?
* Which relationships may support preferred stories?
* How might today's conversation contribute to identity development?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* What happened?
* What did you do?
* What made that possible?
* What does this say about you?
* Why was this important?
* Which values were being expressed?
* Who would recognise this version of you?
* How does this fit with the person you want to become?
* Which other experiences connect with this story?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Which preferred story became stronger?
* Which identity themes emerged?
* How were values connected to lived experience?
* Which relationships could further strengthen this story?
* What conversations should continue next time?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Externalising]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Unique outcomes]]
* [[Narrative identity]]
* [[Thickening the plot|Thick description]]
* [[Absent but implicit]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Re-authoring conversations]]
* [[Thickening the plot|Thickening preferred stories]]
* [[Unique outcome development|Exploring unique outcomes]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Landscape of Action Questions]]
* [[Landscape of Identity Questions]]
* [[Unique outcome questions|Unique Outcome Questions]]
* [[Therapeutic letter]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. New York: W. W. Norton.

----

== Notes ==

Re-authoring is not the creation of fictional or overly positive stories. It is a disciplined therapeutic process that connects authentic lived experiences into richer narratives organised around people's values, commitments and preferred identities. It provides the primary mechanism through which Narrative Therapy supports enduring identity development.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Re-authoring conversations

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Re-authoring conversations =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

[[Re-authoring]] conversations are narrative conversations that help people develop richer and more preferred stories about their lives, identities and relationships.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 3 — METHODS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Re-authoring conversations are central to narrative therapy.

They help people move from thin, problem-saturated stories towards richer accounts of identity, values, relationships and possibility.

A re-authoring conversation does not erase pain or difficulty. Instead, it helps people notice experiences that have been left out of the dominant story and connect these experiences into a more meaningful alternative account.

Re-authoring usually develops from unique outcomes, absent but implicit values, preferred stories and the person’s own language.

The therapist asks questions that connect actions to values, values to identity, identity to history, and history to future possibility.

== Purpose of this method ==

The purpose of this method is to support people to become less defined by problem stories and more connected to preferred identities.

It helps people recognise skills, values, commitments, relationships and acts of resistance that may have been hidden by the dominant story.

It also supports therapeutic movement from problem description to identity development and future action.

== When to use this method ==

Use this method when:

* a dominant story has become visible
* unique outcomes have been identified
* the person wants to develop a different story
* there are values or hopes hidden inside distress
* identity has become narrowed by the problem
* the family wants to relate differently
* the therapist wants to thicken an alternative story

== How this method works ==

The therapist explores unique outcomes and asks questions that connect them to broader meaning.

This may include:

* what happened
* what the person did
* what this says about what matters to them
* what this says about their identity
* whether this has happened before
* who has witnessed this part of them
* what future this story points towards

Re-authoring conversations often move between two landscapes:

* the landscape of action: what happened and what the person did
* the landscape of identity: what this says about values, commitments and identity

== Non-clinical example ==

A person says:

“I am someone who always gives up.”

During conversation, they remember times when they kept trying, asked for help, changed direction and protected what mattered to them.

A re-authoring conversation helps connect these moments into a story of persistence and care rather than failure.

== Clinical example ==

A young person is described as “always oppositional”.

The therapist explores moments when the young person resisted unfairness, protected a sibling, asked for respect or tried to explain their point of view.

The conversation may help re-author the story from “oppositional” to “someone who cares deeply about fairness and wants to have a voice”.

== Step-by-step process ==

# Identify the dominant story.
# Listen for unique outcomes or exceptions.
# Explore the landscape of action: what happened, where, when and who was involved.
# Explore the landscape of identity: what this says about values, hopes and commitments.
# Link the moment to other moments across time.
# Ask who has witnessed this preferred story.
# Explore what the story makes possible.
# Give the emerging story a name if useful.
# Consider how the story can be supported in daily life.
# Use documents, letters or witnessing practices to thicken the story.

== Questions before using this method ==

* What dominant story is being re-authored?
* What unique outcomes are available?
* What values or commitments are visible?
* Is the person ready to explore alternative identity?
* Who might support this preferred story?
* How can I avoid imposing my own interpretation?

== Questions during use ==

* What happened in that moment?
* What did you do that made a difference?
* What does this say about what matters to you?
* Has this value shown up at other times?
* Who would recognise this story about you?
* What name would you give this direction in your life?
* What future would fit with this story?

== Questions after use ==

* Did I connect action with identity?
* Did I help thicken the alternative story?
* Did I avoid minimising the problem story?
* What values became clearer?
* What witnesses might support the story?
* What document or letter could help preserve the re-authored story?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Problem-saturated story#Dominant stories|Dominant story]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Unique outcomes]]
[[Thickening the plot]]
[[Absent but implicit]]
[[Double listening]]
[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]
[[Positioning]]
[[Stories lived vs stories told]]
[[Absent but implicit#Values|Values]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Re-authoring questions]]
[[Unique outcome questions]]
[[Thickening questions]]
[[Absent but implicit questions]]
[[Preferred story questions]]
[[Witnessing questions]]
[[Future questions]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Power and culture pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]
[[Jerome Bruner]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. Norton.
* Bruner, J. (1990). ''Acts of Meaning''. Harvard University Press.

== Notes / source material ==

Re-authoring conversations should remain grounded in the person’s own experience.

The therapist does not write a better story for the person. The therapist supports the person to notice, connect and give language to stories that are already present but less visible.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Problem-saturated story

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Problem-saturated Story =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

A problem-saturated story is a dominant narrative that organises how people understand themselves, their relationships and their lives primarily through the influence of a problem, often obscuring experiences that contradict this account.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Narrative Therapy proposes that people make sense of their lives through stories. These stories are not objective descriptions of reality but interpretations shaped by lived experience, relationships, language and culture.

When a problem becomes increasingly influential, it can dominate how a person interprets themselves and the events around them. Over time, experiences that support the problem become highly visible, while experiences that contradict it are overlooked, forgotten or considered insignificant.

This narrowing of attention gives rise to a problem-saturated story.

For example, someone who comes to understand themselves as "a failure" may remember every setback while overlooking achievements, supportive relationships and moments of resilience. Similarly, a family organised around the story that a child is "the difficult one" may unintentionally interpret almost every interaction through this lens.

Problem-saturated stories are powerful because they shape:

* identity
* relationships
* expectations
* emotions
* behaviour
* future possibilities

Narrative Therapy does not seek to deny these stories or argue that they are false. Instead, it explores how they developed, what has sustained them and which alternative stories have become hidden.

The aim is to create space for richer and more balanced understandings of people's lives.

----

== Supporting concepts ==

This concept incorporates the following supporting concepts:

* Dominant stories
* [[Cultural narratives]]
* Resistance
* [[Subjugated knowledge]]

=== Dominant stories ===

Dominant stories are narratives that become increasingly influential through repetition.

These stories are often reinforced by:

* repeated experiences
* family conversations
* professional opinions
* educational settings
* social expectations
* cultural beliefs

As dominant stories strengthen, alternative understandings become less accessible.

Narrative Therapy seeks to loosen the influence of dominant stories rather than replacing them with equally rigid alternatives.

----

=== Cultural narratives ===

Problem-saturated stories do not develop in isolation.

They are influenced by wider cultural narratives about:

* success
* failure
* gender
* parenting
* education
* mental health
* relationships
* ability

These broader discourses shape how people interpret themselves and how others respond to them.

Exploring cultural narratives helps distinguish personal experience from socially imposed expectations.

----

=== Resistance ===

Even when a problem appears dominant, people continue resisting its influence.

Acts of resistance may include:

* seeking support
* protecting others
* maintaining hope
* showing kindness
* refusing injustice
* continuing despite fear

Initially these actions may seem insignificant, yet they often provide the first evidence that the problem does not tell the whole story.

Resistance becomes the bridge towards unique outcomes and preferred stories.

----

=== Subjugated knowledge ===

Subjugated knowledge refers to experiences, abilities and understandings that have become hidden beneath the dominant problem story.

Examples include:

* forgotten successes
* overlooked strengths
* meaningful relationships
* personal values
* acts of courage
* moments of joy

Narrative Therapy helps recover this knowledge so that it can contribute to richer identity stories.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Without recognising problem-saturated stories, therapy can unintentionally reinforce them.

Narrative Therapy therefore begins by understanding how these stories have come to dominate while remaining curious about what has been excluded.

This creates opportunities to:

* reduce shame
* broaden identity
* identify unique outcomes
* strengthen agency
* reconnect with values
* develop preferred stories

Problem-saturated stories are not viewed as mistakes but as incomplete accounts of people's lives.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A university student repeatedly describes herself as "not intelligent enough."

Although she has successfully completed assignments, supported classmates and received positive feedback, these experiences are dismissed as luck.

The dominant story of inadequacy shapes how every new experience is interpreted.

Therapy begins exploring how this story developed and what experiences it has ignored.

----

== Clinical example ==

A father referred because of persistent low mood repeatedly describes himself as "a terrible parent."

As therapy progresses, he recalls consistently attending school events, comforting his children during difficult times and maintaining family routines despite depression.

These experiences challenge the dominant story and provide foundations for a richer understanding of his identity as a caring and committed father.

----

== Core insight ==

Problem-saturated stories are powerful because they organise attention.

Therapy helps people recognise that these stories are only one account of their lives and that many alternative stories already exist.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Which story currently dominates the person's identity?
* How has this story developed?
* Who reinforces it?
* Which experiences appear to have been overlooked?
* What cultural narratives may be contributing?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* How would you describe the story the problem tells about you?
* When did this story first become influential?
* Who has supported this story?
* Who has questioned it?
* Which experiences seem not to fit this story?
* What has this story prevented you from noticing?
* What might be missing from this account?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Which assumptions within the dominant story were questioned?
* What alternative experiences emerged?
* Which acts of resistance became visible?
* What themes should be explored further?
* How might these conversations lead towards preferred stories?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Externalising]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Unique outcomes]]
* [[Re-authoring]]
* [[Narrative identity]]
* [[Absent but Implicit]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Externalising conversation]]
* [[Unique outcome development|Exploring unique outcomes]]
* [[Re-authoring conversations]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Relative Influence Questions]]
* [[Unique outcome questions|Unique Outcome Questions]]
* [[Landscape of Identity Questions]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. New York: W. W. Norton.

----

== Notes ==

Problem-saturated stories are not treated as distortions to be corrected but as dominant narratives that have become privileged over other equally valid experiences. Narrative Therapy respectfully explores how these stories developed while helping people recover neglected experiences that support richer, more preferred accounts of identity and relationships.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Preferred story

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Preferred Story =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

A preferred story is an alternative account of a person's life that is more consistent with their values, intentions, hopes, relationships and lived experiences than the dominant problem-saturated story.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Narrative Therapy proposes that every person's life contains multiple stories. While some stories become dominant through repeated experiences and cultural reinforcement, they never represent the whole person.

Problems often become organised around '''problem-saturated stories'''. These stories draw attention towards failure, distress, conflict or deficit while overlooking many experiences that contradict these conclusions. Over time, these stories may shape identity, influence relationships and restrict future possibilities.

A preferred story is not an artificially positive story or an attempt to replace one narrative with another. Rather, it is a richer and more balanced account of a person's life that reflects their values, commitments, intentions, relationships and abilities.

Preferred stories emerge through careful exploration of experiences that have often been neglected, forgotten or minimised. As these experiences are linked together, they begin to offer an alternative understanding of identity.

The development of preferred stories is one of the central aims of Narrative Therapy. They provide the foundation upon which people can organise future actions, relationships and identities.

----

== Supporting concepts ==

This concept incorporates the following supporting concepts:

* Agency
* Hope
* Preferred identity
* Future identity

=== Agency ===

Agency refers to a person's capacity to influence their own life despite the presence of difficulties.

Narrative Therapy assumes that people are never passive recipients of problems. Even when problems appear overwhelming, people continue making choices that reflect their values and intentions.

Preferred stories strengthen agency by highlighting these moments of choice and resistance.

Examples of agency include:

* asking for help
* protecting others
* refusing to give up
* showing kindness
* continuing despite fear
* making difficult decisions

Recognising agency helps people experience themselves as active participants in their own lives rather than victims of circumstances.

----

=== Hope ===

Hope is not introduced through reassurance or positive thinking.

Instead, hope develops naturally as people reconnect with experiences that demonstrate alternative possibilities.

As preferred stories become richer, people often begin imagining futures that previously felt impossible.

Narrative Therapy therefore views hope as something that emerges from lived experience rather than something created by the therapist.

----

=== Preferred identity ===

Preferred stories gradually contribute to preferred identities.

These identities reflect how people wish to understand themselves rather than how problems have described them.

Examples include:

* a caring parent
* a resilient young person
* a thoughtful partner
* a courageous student
* someone who values honesty
* a compassionate friend

Preferred identities remain flexible and evolving rather than fixed labels.

----

=== Future identity ===

Preferred stories naturally invite conversations about the future.

Rather than predicting what will happen, Narrative therapists explore the identities people wish to continue developing.

Questions may include:

* What kind of person are you becoming?
* Which parts of this story would you like to strengthen?
* How might others notice this preferred story becoming more influential?
* Which relationships could support this future?

These conversations help preferred stories extend beyond the therapy room.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Many people arrive in therapy with identities organised around failure, shame or distress.

Narrative Therapy recognises that these stories often become dominant because they are repeated frequently and supported by wider social or cultural narratives.

Preferred stories offer an alternative.

Rather than ignoring suffering, they broaden the person's understanding of themselves by reconnecting them with experiences that reveal strengths, values and commitments.

As preferred stories become increasingly detailed, they often influence:

* confidence
* relationships
* decision-making
* emotional wellbeing
* future aspirations
* sense of identity

Therapy therefore becomes less concerned with eliminating problems and more interested in strengthening stories that people wish to live by.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A newly qualified teacher repeatedly describes herself as "not good enough."

Through conversation she remembers several occasions when pupils sought her support, colleagues praised her creativity and parents thanked her for her kindness.

Initially these events seem unrelated.

As they are linked together, they begin forming a preferred story organised around compassion, perseverance and professional growth rather than inadequacy.

----

== Clinical example ==

A father experiencing depression describes himself as "a failure."

During therapy he recalls continuing to attend his children's sporting events, reading bedtime stories despite exhaustion and supporting his partner during difficult periods.

Although these events initially seem insignificant to him, they gradually become connected into a preferred story organised around commitment, love and responsibility.

This richer story begins influencing how he understands himself both within and beyond therapy.

----

== Core insight ==

Preferred stories are not invented by therapists.

They are discovered, connected and richly described through conversations that honour people's lived experiences, values and relationships.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Which problem-saturated stories currently dominate?
* What alternative stories may already exist?
* Which values or commitments have already become visible?
* What opportunities exist for strengthening agency?
* Which relationships might support preferred stories?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* When have you responded differently from what the problem expected?
* What does that tell you about yourself?
* What values were guiding your actions?
* Who would recognise this version of you?
* Which relationships support this story?
* What future becomes possible if this story continues developing?
* How would you prefer your life to be described?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Which preferred story became more visible?
* Which values emerged most clearly?
* How was agency strengthened?
* What identity themes deserve further exploration?
* Which conversations could help this story become richer?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Externalising]]
* [[Problem-saturated story]]
* [[Unique outcomes]]
* [[Re-authoring]]
* [[Narrative identity]]
* [[Thickening the plot|Thick description]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Re-authoring conversations]]
* [[Thickening the plot|Thickening preferred stories]]
* [[Unique outcome development|Exploring unique outcomes]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Landscape of Identity Questions]]
* [[Unique outcome questions|Unique Outcome Questions]]
* [[Therapeutic letter]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. New York: W. W. Norton.

----

== Notes ==

Preferred stories develop gradually through repeated therapeutic conversations rather than through isolated insights. They are strengthened by linking unique outcomes, exploring values, engaging supportive relationships and documenting preferred identities. Narrative therapists remain careful not to impose preferred stories but instead collaborate with people to identify stories that genuinely reflect their lived experience.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Outsider witness practice

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Outsider Witness Practice =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Outsider Witness Practice is a Narrative Therapy approach in which selected witnesses listen to a person's preferred story and respond in ways that acknowledge, enrich and strengthen that story without judging, advising or interpreting it.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Outsider Witness Practice was developed by [[Michael White]] as a way of extending therapeutic conversations beyond the relationship between therapist and client.

Narrative Therapy recognises that identities are socially constructed and sustained through relationships. Stories become more influential when they are witnessed by others who respond respectfully and thoughtfully.

An outsider witness is not an expert offering advice or interpretation. Instead, they listen carefully for the values, commitments, hopes and preferred identities emerging within the person's story.

Following the conversation, the witness shares what stood out to them, what resonated personally and how the story has influenced their own thinking. These reflections often allow people to hear their own stories from a new perspective.

Outsider Witness Practice therefore strengthens preferred stories by creating opportunities for recognition, acknowledgement and shared meaning.

----

== Supporting concepts ==

This concept incorporates the following supporting concepts:

* Definitional ceremonies
* Resonant listening
* [[Double listening]]
* Community witnessing

=== Definitional ceremonies ===

Definitional ceremonies are structured conversations involving the person, outsider witnesses and therapist.

Michael White adapted the term from anthropologist [[Barbara Myerhoff]] to describe ceremonies that publicly acknowledge and strengthen preferred identities.

The process generally follows four stages:

# The person shares their story.
# The outsider witness responds.
# The person reflects on the witness's response.
# The witness offers a final reflection.

This structure encourages preferred stories to become more visible and socially recognised.

----

=== Resonant listening ===

Outsider witnesses listen for what genuinely resonates with them.

Rather than analysing the person's experience, they attend to:

* values
* commitments
* intentions
* acts of courage
* preferred identities

Their reflections are personal rather than evaluative.

Responses often begin with:

* "What stood out to me was..."
* "I found myself wondering..."
* "This reminded me of..."
* "I was particularly moved by..."

Resonant listening creates connection while respecting the uniqueness of the person's experience.

----

=== Double listening ===

Narrative therapists and outsider witnesses practise double listening.

This means listening simultaneously for:

* the story of suffering
* the story of response

While acknowledging pain, they also remain attentive to the ways people have already resisted, protected relationships, expressed values or acted with courage.

Double listening prevents problems from becoming the only story that is heard.

----

=== Community witnessing ===

Preferred identities become stronger when recognised within relationships and communities.

Outsider Witness Practice therefore extends therapeutic change beyond individual conversations.

Community witnessing may involve:

* family members
* peers
* professionals
* support groups
* wider communities

The aim is not to gain approval but to create relational contexts in which preferred stories can continue developing.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Many people have spent years hearing stories about themselves that emphasise failure, illness or difficulty.

Outsider Witness Practice provides opportunities for different stories to be recognised.

Being genuinely heard by others often helps people experience their preferred identities as more real, credible and sustainable.

The practice also reflects Narrative Therapy's belief that identity develops through relationships rather than in isolation.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A university student shares a story about overcoming significant self-doubt during their first year.

Following the conversation, peers describe how they were struck by the student's perseverance and willingness to support others despite their own struggles.

Hearing these reflections helps the student recognise qualities they had previously overlooked.

----

== Clinical example ==

A young person completing therapy shares the story of gradually reclaiming friendships following severe social anxiety.

An outsider witness reflects on the courage required to continue attending school despite fear and notes how strongly the young person's commitment to friendship came through.

The young person later describes this reflection as helping them see themselves as courageous rather than anxious.

----

== Core insight ==

Stories become more influential when they are witnessed.

Respectful witnessing allows preferred identities to move from private discoveries to socially recognised realities.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Would outsider witnesses strengthen this conversation?
* Who could respectfully witness the person's preferred story?
* What preparation might witnesses require?
* How can psychological safety be maintained?
* Which preferred identity themes are emerging?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* What stood out most in this story?
* Which values became visible?
* What resonated with you personally?
* What image or phrase will stay with you?
* How has hearing this story influenced your own thinking?
* What preferred identity did you witness?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* How did witnessing influence the person's preferred story?
* Which reflections appeared most meaningful?
* How did the conversation strengthen identity?
* Which relationships might continue witnessing this story?
* How could community support continue beyond therapy?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Re-authoring]]
* [[Narrative identity]]
* [[Narrative documents]]
* [[Externalising]]
* [[Re-membering]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Outsider witness practice|Outsider witness conversations]]
* [[Therapeutic documents|Therapeutic documentation]]
* [[Re-authoring conversations]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Definitional ceremony|Definitional ceremonies]]
* [[Therapeutic letter]]
* [[Reflecting process]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]
* [[Barbara Myerhoff]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M. (2000). ''Reflections on Narrative Practice''.
* Myerhoff, B. (1982). "Life History Among the Elderly: Performance, Visibility and Remembering."

----

== Notes ==

Outsider Witness Practice is not intended as feedback, supervision or interpretation. Its purpose is to create a respectful relational context in which preferred stories can be heard, acknowledged and strengthened. The emphasis is on witnessing rather than evaluating, allowing people's preferred identities to gain greater richness and social recognition.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Narrative

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

Narrative identity

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Narrative Identity =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Narrative identity refers to the understanding people develop about who they are through the stories they tell about themselves, the relationships they experience and the meanings they construct throughout their lives.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Narrative Therapy proposes that identity is not a fixed internal characteristic, personality trait or diagnosis. Instead, identity is continuously shaped and reshaped through stories.

These stories emerge through everyday experiences, family relationships, friendships, communities, culture and language. Some stories become dominant because they are repeatedly reinforced, while others remain overlooked despite revealing important aspects of the person's life.

People often arrive in therapy with identities organised around problems.

Examples include:

* "I'm a failure."
* "I'm broken."
* "I'm difficult."
* "I'm weak."
* "I'm not good enough."

Narrative Therapy does not attempt to replace these stories with positive affirmations. Instead, it helps people reconnect with experiences that demonstrate alternative understandings of themselves.

As preferred stories become richer and more connected, people's understanding of who they are begins to change.

Narrative identity is therefore understood as relational, contextual and continually evolving rather than fixed or predetermined.

----

== Supporting concepts ==

This concept incorporates the following supporting concepts:

* Identity claims
* Identity performance
* Belonging
* Internalised others

=== Identity claims ===

Identity claims are statements people make about themselves.

These claims often develop through repeated experiences and conversations with others.

Problem-saturated identity claims include:

* I'm useless.
* I'm always anxious.
* I'm a bad parent.

Preferred identity claims may include:

* I'm someone who keeps trying.
* I'm a caring father.
* I'm resilient.
* I'm trustworthy.

Narrative Therapy explores how these claims developed, whose voices support them and which lived experiences strengthen or challenge them.

----

=== Identity performance ===

Identity is expressed not only through stories but also through actions.

Everyday behaviour continually reinforces particular identity stories.

For example:

* comforting a friend may express compassion
* standing up to bullying may express courage
* continuing despite setbacks may express perseverance

Narrative therapists help people notice these actions and connect them to preferred identities.

Questions include:

* What did you do?
* What does that action say about you?
* What values were being expressed?
* How does this fit with the person you want to be?

Identity becomes something that is lived rather than merely described.

----

=== Belonging ===

Identity develops within relationships.

People's preferred identities are strengthened when they are recognised and supported by others.

Narrative Therapy therefore explores:

* where people feel accepted
* who recognises their strengths
* which relationships support preferred stories
* which communities help preferred identities grow

Belonging allows preferred stories to become sustainable beyond therapy.

----

=== Internalised others ===

People carry the voices of significant others throughout their lives.

Some voices encourage preferred identities.

Others reinforce problem-saturated stories.

Narrative Therapy becomes curious about questions such as:

* Whose opinion matters most?
* Which voices continue influencing your life?
* Which voices support your preferred identity?
* Which voices would you like to become less influential?

This naturally connects with [[Re-membering]] conversations, where supportive relationships are intentionally strengthened.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Many therapeutic approaches focus on changing behaviour or reducing symptoms.

Narrative Therapy focuses on expanding identity.

When people begin understanding themselves through richer stories, changes in behaviour, emotion and relationships often follow naturally.

Developing preferred identities can influence:

* confidence
* relationships
* emotional wellbeing
* decision-making
* resilience
* future aspirations
* sense of belonging

Narrative identity therefore becomes one of the central organising concepts of therapeutic change.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A university student repeatedly describes herself as "not clever enough."

Through conversation she remembers mentoring younger students, completing challenging assignments and supporting friends through difficult times.

These experiences gradually become connected into a richer identity story organised around determination, generosity and capability rather than inadequacy.

----

== Clinical example ==

A fifteen-year-old referred for low mood describes himself as "a disappointment."

During therapy he recalls continuing to care for younger siblings, maintaining friendships and regularly helping his grandmother despite feeling overwhelmed.

These experiences become linked into an emerging preferred identity organised around responsibility, kindness and commitment.

Over time this preferred identity becomes increasingly influential in how he understands himself and relates to others.

----

== Core insight ==

Identity is not something people discover.

Identity is something people continually construct through stories, relationships and lived experience.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Which identity conclusions currently dominate?
* What preferred identity themes have already emerged?
* Which relationships strengthen these identities?
* Which voices continue influencing the person's self-understanding?
* How might today's conversation expand identity?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* What does this experience tell you about yourself?
* What values were guiding your actions?
* What kind of person were you being?
* Who would recognise this version of you?
* Which relationships support this understanding of yourself?
* Which story would you prefer to become more influential?
* What identity is beginning to emerge?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Which preferred identity became stronger?
* Which values became more visible?
* How did the person's understanding of themselves change?
* Which relationships could further support this identity?
* What themes should be explored in future sessions?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Problem-saturated story]]
* [[Re-authoring]]
* [[Identity conclusions]]
* [[Re-membering]]
* [[Externalising]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Re-authoring conversations]]
* [[Re-membering conversation]]
* [[Thickening the plot|Thickening preferred stories]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Landscape of Identity Questions]]
* [[Unique outcome questions|Unique Outcome Questions]]
* [[Therapeutic letter]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. New York: W. W. Norton.

----

== Notes ==

Professional and institutional language plays a particular role in identity construction. Descriptions such as "non-compliant", "manipulative", "attention-seeking", "resistant" or "dysfunctional" can become part of a person's identity story when repeated across reports, meetings and services. A narrative approach asks how identity has been constructed, whose descriptions have become powerful, and what alternative identities may be possible.

Narrative identity should be understood as an ongoing relational process rather than a fixed personal characteristic. Therapy seeks to broaden identity by connecting overlooked experiences into richer stories that reflect people's values, commitments and preferred ways of living. Identity is continually shaped through participation in relationships, communities and culture, making it both deeply personal and inherently relational.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Meeting the person away from the problem

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Meeting the person away from the problem =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Meeting the person away from the problem is the practice of deliberately getting to know a person's life, skills, interests, relationships and values separately from any conversation about the problem that brought them to therapy.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 3 — METHODS]]

== Expanded definition ==

[[Narrative]] Therapy assumes that a person is never fully described by a problem. Yet by the time someone reaches therapy, the [[Problem-saturated story]] has often become the main account available — professionals, referrers and sometimes the family itself may only know the person through the problem.

Meeting the person away from the problem deliberately interrupts this. Early in the work — often in the first meeting — the therapist spends unhurried time learning about the person's life beyond the difficulty: what they enjoy, what they are good at, who matters to them, what they care about, and how they would like to be known.

This is not small talk before the "real work" begins. It is itself a narrative intervention: it establishes from the outset that the person and the problem are not the same thing, laying the experiential ground for [[Externalising]] before any externalising language is used. It also gives the therapist material — values, skills, relationships — that later supports [[Unique outcomes]], [[Re-authoring]] and [[Thickening the plot]].

== Purpose of this method ==

The purpose of this method is to establish a relationship with the person, rather than with the problem — so that the problem, when it is discussed, is discussed against the backdrop of a fuller life rather than filling the whole picture.

== When to use this method ==

Use this method when:

* beginning work with any new person or family, especially where the referral is heavily problem-saturated
* a person seems to have become entirely identified with the problem, by themselves or by others
* preparing the ground for externalising conversations
* the conversation has become so problem-focused that the person's wider life has disappeared from view

== How this method works ==

The therapist asks about the person's life as if the problem did not exist for a while — interests, abilities, relationships, hopes, daily pleasures, history — and listens with genuine curiosity, letting this account develop enough detail to stand on its own.

The material gathered is remembered and returned to later: the values and skills discovered here often become the first threads of an alternative story.

== Non-clinical example ==

A new manager inheriting a team member described by others as "a problem employee" deliberately spends their first one-to-one learning about the person's actual skills, interests and history in the organisation — building their own picture before the inherited description takes over.

== Clinical example ==

A young person arrives with a referral describing school refusal, anxiety and family conflict. Before discussing any of it, the therapist spends time learning that the young person cares for two dogs, is trusted by younger cousins, draws well, and is loyal to a small group of friends. When the problem is eventually discussed, it is now a problem in the life of ''this'' person — not the whole of who they are.

== Step-by-step process ==

# Begin the meeting with genuine interest in the person's life beyond the problem.
# Ask about interests, skills, relationships, values and daily life.
# Let this account develop real detail — do not rush towards the problem.
# Notice values, abilities and relationships that may support later story development.
# When the problem enters the conversation, hold it against this fuller backdrop.
# Return to this material later in the work, when unique outcomes and preferred stories emerge.

== Questions before using this method ==

* What do I know about this person that is not about the problem?
* Has the referral given me only a problem-saturated account?

== Questions during use ==

* Am I genuinely curious about this person's life, or waiting to get to the problem?
* What values, skills and relationships are becoming visible?

== Questions after use ==

* Could I describe this person richly without mentioning the problem?
* What material from this conversation might support later re-authoring work?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Externalising]]
[[Problem-saturated story]]
[[Unique outcomes]]
[[Narrative identity]]
[[Preferred story]]

== Related methods ==

[[Externalising conversation]]
[[Re-authoring conversations]]
[[Unique outcome development]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Externalising questions]]
[[Unique outcome questions]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]

== Key texts / references ==

* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.

== Notes / source material ==

This practice is sometimes described in narrative training as "getting acquainted with the person away from the problem." Its effect depends on the curiosity being genuine — used as a technique to get through before the real agenda, it loses exactly the quality that makes it work.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Mapping the influence of the problem questions

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Mapping the influence of the problem questions =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Mapping the influence of the problem questions are narrative questions that explore how a problem affects a person’s life, relationships, identity and future possibilities.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 4 — TECHNIQUES AND INTERVENTIONS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Mapping the influence of the problem questions are used after the problem has been externalised and named.

These questions explore what the problem does.

They help make visible the problem’s effects on:

* emotions
* body
* relationships
* family life
* school or work
* identity
* self-worth
* hopes
* routines
* future possibilities

The aim is not to increase problem-saturated talk, but to understand the problem’s reach so that the person or family can evaluate its effects and decide how they want to respond.

== Purpose of this technique ==

The purpose of this technique is to make the problem’s influence visible and discussable.

It helps people:

* understand how the problem operates
* separate themselves from the problem
* identify what the problem has taken or interrupted
* notice the problem’s effects on relationships
* evaluate whether they accept or reject these effects
* prepare for resistance and unique outcome work

== When to use this technique ==

Use this technique when:

* the problem has already been named
* the person or family needs to understand the problem’s effects
* the problem feels vague or overwhelming
* the therapist is using externalising conversation
* the family needs shared language about the problem
* the therapist wants to prepare for person influence mapping
* the problem’s relational effects need to be explored

== How to use this technique ==

Use the externalised name of the problem in the questions.

Ask about different areas of life.

Move gently and avoid turning the conversation into an interrogation.

After mapping effects, invite evaluation.

For example:

“Are these effects okay with you, or are they something you want to challenge?”

This helps the person take a position in relation to the problem.

== Example prompts / questions ==

* How has the problem affected you?
* How has the problem affected your family?
* How has the problem affected your physical life?
* How has the problem affected your emotional life?
* How has the problem affected your relationships?
* How has the problem affected school, work or daily routines?
* What does the problem get you to believe about yourself?
* What has the problem taken away from you?
* What has the problem interrupted?
* How has the problem affected your hopes?
* Who else has been affected by the problem?
* What does the problem try to make others believe about you?
* Are these effects okay with you?
* Which effects do you most want to challenge?

== Non-clinical example ==

A person names “the pressure to be perfect”.

The therapist asks how the pressure affects sleep, friendships, work, confidence and rest.

The person begins to see that the pressure has taken away ease, playfulness and self-acceptance.

== Clinical example ==

A family names “the worry”.

The therapist asks how the worry affects the young person, parents, siblings, bedtime, school attendance and family conversations.

The family begins to see that the worry is not only inside the young person. It has influenced the whole family pattern.

== What this technique can open up ==

This technique can open:

* clearer understanding of the problem’s effects
* shared family language
* emotional validation
* evaluation of the problem’s influence
* values that have been violated by the problem
* resistance to the problem
* person influence mapping
* unique outcome development

== Risks, cautions and ethical considerations ==

This technique can become too problem-focused if used without care.

The therapist should avoid spending too long mapping problem effects without also listening for values, protest, resistance and agency.

The therapist should also avoid making the person feel responsible for all the effects of the problem.

== Questions before using this technique ==

* Has the problem been externalised clearly?
* Is the person ready to explore the problem’s effects?
* Could this increase shame or hopelessness?
* How can I keep the person separate from the problem?
* Which life areas are most relevant?
* How will I move towards evaluation and agency?

== Questions during use ==

* Is the person becoming more separate from the problem?
* Are the questions creating clarity or overwhelm?
* Are values and hopes becoming visible?
* Is the family seeing relational effects without blaming?
* Is it time to ask evaluative questions?
* Is it time to move towards resistance and person influence mapping?

== Questions after use ==

* What effects of the problem became visible?
* What values were affected by the problem?
* Did the person take a position against the problem?
* Did the conversation reduce shame or increase it?
* What acts of resistance can now be explored?
* What person influence questions should follow?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]
[[Systemic epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Externalising|Externalisation]]
[[Externalising#Problem as separate from the person|Problem as separate from person]]
[[Problem-saturated story]]
[[Problem-saturated story#Dominant stories|Dominant story]]
[[Preferred story#Agency|Agency]]
[[Resistance]]
[[Positioning]]
[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]
[[Meaning-making]]
[[Relational responsibility]]

== Related methods ==

[[Externalising conversation]]
[[Problem influence mapping questions]]
[[Experience-near naming]]
[[Person influence mapping]]
[[Unique outcome development]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Power and culture pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]
[[Stephen Madigan]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. Norton.
* Madigan, S. (2011). ''Narrative Therapy''. American Psychological Association.

== Notes / source material ==

Mapping the influence of the problem should usually be followed by questions that explore the person’s influence on the problem.

This prevents the conversation from remaining only problem-saturated.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Mapping the influence of the person questions

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Mapping the influence of the person questions =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Mapping the influence of the person questions are narrative questions that explore how a person has responded to, resisted, reduced or challenged the influence of a problem.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 4 — TECHNIQUES AND INTERVENTIONS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Mapping the influence of the person questions are used after the influence of the problem has been explored.

These questions shift attention from what the problem has done to what the person has done in response.

They help identify acts of resistance, agency, care, skill, refusal, protest, courage and preferred values.

The questions do not suggest that the person is responsible for defeating the problem. Instead, they help notice that the person may already have some influence, even in small ways.

For example, the problem may still be present, but the person may have delayed it, questioned it, spoken back to it, asked for support, protected a relationship, or acted according to their values despite its presence.

== Purpose of this technique ==

The purpose of this technique is to make agency visible.

It helps people:

* notice moments of resistance
* recognise skills and values
* challenge the idea that the problem has total control
* develop unique outcomes
* strengthen preferred identity
* identify future responses
* connect small actions to larger stories of hope and possibility

== When to use this technique ==

Use this technique when:

* the problem has been externalised
* the influence of the problem has been mapped
* the person feels powerless
* small acts of resistance are present
* the therapist wants to develop unique outcomes
* the conversation needs to move from problem effects towards agency
* the person or family is ready to notice preferred responses

== How to use this technique ==

Use the externalised name of the problem.

Ask about times when the person limited the problem’s influence, even slightly.

Stay curious about small actions. Do not only look for dramatic change.

Explore what helped the person respond differently, who noticed, what values were present, and what this might say about the person’s preferred identity.

== Example prompts / questions ==

* Were there times when you managed to resist the problem?
* When did you keep the problem from affecting your mood?
* When did you keep the problem from affecting how you valued yourself?
* When did you keep the problem from interrupting your relationships?
* When have you kept the problem from taking over completely?
* What helped you resist the problem in that moment?
* What resources did you use to fight or challenge the problem?
* What did you do that the problem would not have wanted?
* Who noticed that you were standing up to the problem?
* What does this say about what matters to you?
* What might this tell us about your hopes?
* How could you build on this response next time?

== Non-clinical example ==

A person says that procrastination controls their evenings.

The therapist asks:

“Were there any moments when you managed to keep procrastination from taking the whole evening?”

The person remembers setting a timer for five minutes and beginning one task.

This small act becomes evidence of influence over the problem.

== Clinical example ==

A young person says anger always wins.

The therapist asks:

“Were there times when anger was present but you managed to stop it from taking over completely?”

The young person remembers walking away, texting a friend, and choosing not to throw something.

The therapist explores what these actions say about care, control, fairness and not wanting to hurt others.

== What this technique can open up ==

This technique can open:

* unique outcomes
* preferred story development
* re-authoring conversations
* recognition of agency
* resistance to shame
* future action planning
* family recognition of effort
* more hopeful relationship with the problem

== Risks, cautions and ethical considerations ==

These questions should not imply that the person is to blame when the problem remains strong.

The therapist should avoid making the person feel they have failed if they cannot identify many examples of resistance.

Small responses should be honoured without turning them into pressure.

The therapist should remain attentive to context, trauma, oppression and practical constraints.

== Questions before using this technique ==

* Has the problem been named clearly?
* Has the influence of the problem already been explored?
* Is the person ready to notice their own influence?
* Could these questions create pressure or shame?
* What small acts of resistance may be easy to miss?
* Who might have witnessed the person’s responses?

== Questions during use ==

* Am I honouring small acts of resistance?
* Is the person feeling more agency or more pressure?
* Are values and intentions becoming visible?
* Is this opening a unique outcome?
* Should I slow down and return to the person’s own language?
* What future action might naturally follow?

== Questions after use ==

* What acts of resistance became visible?
* What values did these actions express?
* Did the person recognise their own agency?
* Did I avoid suggesting that they should simply try harder?
* What preferred story could be developed?
* Who could witness or support this story?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]
[[Systemic epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]
[[Brief Solution Focused]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Externalising|Externalisation]]
[[Preferred story#Agency|Agency]]
[[Resistance]]
[[Unique outcomes]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Externalising#Problem as separate from the person|Problem as separate from person]]
[[Stories lived vs stories told]]
[[Thickening the plot]]
[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]

== Related methods ==

[[Externalising conversation]]
[[Person influence mapping]]
[[Problem influence mapping questions]]
[[Unique outcome development]]
[[Scaffolding conversations]]
[[Re-authoring conversations]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Brief Solution Focused pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]
[[Stephen Madigan]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. Norton.
* Madigan, S. (2011). ''Narrative Therapy''. American Psychological Association.

== Notes / source material ==

Mapping the influence of the person should always preserve dignity and context.

The aim is to notice agency, not to suggest that people should be able to overcome every problem through individual effort alone.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Landscape of meaning questions

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Landscape of meaning questions =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Landscape of meaning questions are narrative questions that explore what actions, events or unique outcomes say about a person’s values, identity, intentions, relationships and preferred story.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 4 — TECHNIQUES AND INTERVENTIONS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Landscape of meaning questions are used in narrative therapy to move from what happened to what it means.

They are often used after [[Landscape of action questions]].

[[Landscape of action questions]] explore the details of an event. Landscape of meaning questions explore the significance of that event.

For example, if a young person describes a moment when they did not let anger take over, landscape of action questions explore what happened step by step.

Landscape of meaning questions then explore what this says about the young person’s values, hopes, skills, identity and preferred way of relating.

These questions help thicken alternative stories and support re-authoring conversations.

== Purpose of this technique ==

The purpose of this technique is to connect lived action with meaning and identity.

It helps people:

* identify values behind actions
* make sense of unique outcomes
* recognise intentions and commitments
* develop preferred identity stories
* notice what their actions say about relationships
* move from behaviour description to meaning-making
* strengthen alternative and preferred stories

== When to use this technique ==

Use landscape of meaning questions when:

* a unique outcome has been identified
* a person has described a meaningful action
* the therapist wants to connect action with identity
* a preferred story is beginning to emerge
* the conversation has enough concrete detail
* the person is ready to reflect on meaning
* re-authoring conversations are developing

== How to use this technique ==

Start with a specific event or action.

Ask what the action says about the person’s values, intentions, hopes, relationships or identity.

Use tentative language.

Do not impose meaning.

Check whether the meaning fits the person’s experience.

The therapist may move back and forth between landscape of action and landscape of meaning.

== Example prompts / questions ==

* What does this say about what matters to you?
* What does this action say about the kind of person you are becoming?
* What do you believe this says about you as a person?
* What do you believe this says about your relationship?
* What were your intentions behind these actions?
* What do you value most about your actions here?
* What, if anything, did you learn or realise from this?
* Does this affect how you see the problem?
* Does this change how you see yourself?
* Does this change how you see your life, your purpose or your future?
* What does this tell us about your hopes?
* What name would you give this direction in your life?

== Non-clinical example ==

A person describes finally asking for help with a difficult task.

The therapist asks what this says about what matters to them.

The person realises it says something about learning to value support, collaboration and not having to manage everything alone.

== Clinical example ==

A parent describes choosing not to shout during a tense moment.

The therapist asks what this says about the parent’s hopes for the relationship.

The parent says it shows they want their child to feel safe enough to speak.

The event becomes part of a preferred story about relational safety and repair.

== What this technique can open up ==

Landscape of meaning questions can open:

* preferred identity stories
* values-based reflection
* re-authoring conversations
* thickening of unique outcomes
* alternative story development
* therapeutic documents
* witnessing practices
* future action planning

== Risks, cautions and ethical considerations ==

These questions can feel too abstract if asked too early.

The therapist should not impose meaning or assume that an action has one obvious meaning.

Some people may need more concrete questions first.

If the person feels confused, return to landscape of action questions and build slowly.

== Questions before using this technique ==

* Has the event been described clearly enough?
* Is the person ready to reflect on meaning?
* Am I about to impose my own interpretation?
* What values may be visible?
* How can I ask this tentatively?
* Should I stay longer with the action before moving to meaning?

== Questions during use ==

* Is the person recognising the meaning as fitting?
* Are values becoming clearer?
* Is the question too abstract?
* Do I need to return to the concrete event?
* Is a preferred identity beginning to appear?
* Is this opening a future direction?

== Questions after use ==

* What meanings became visible?
* Did the person recognise these meanings as their own?
* Did I avoid over-interpreting?
* What preferred story could be developed?
* What future action might grow from this?
* Would a therapeutic document help preserve this meaning?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]
[[Systemic epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]
[[Brief Solution Focused]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Re-authoring#Landscape of Identity|Landscape of meaning]]
[[Re-authoring#Landscape of Action|Landscape of action]]
[[Meaning-making]]
[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]
[[Unique outcomes]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Thickening the plot]]
[[Preferred story#Agency|Agency]]
[[Absent but implicit#Values|Values]]
[[Stories lived vs stories told]]

== Related methods ==

[[Landscape of action and identity mapping]]
[[Unique outcome development]]
[[Scaffolding conversations]]
[[Re-authoring conversations]]
[[Alternative story development]]
[[Preferred story development]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Brief Solution Focused pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]
[[Lev Vygotsky]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. Norton.

== Notes / source material ==

Landscape of meaning questions should be asked gently.

The therapist is not telling the person what an action means. The therapist is inviting the person to explore what meaning the action may hold for them.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Landscape of action questions

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Landscape of action questions =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Landscape of action questions are narrative questions that explore what happened, who was involved, what actions were taken, and how events unfolded.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 4 — TECHNIQUES AND INTERVENTIONS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Landscape of action questions are used in narrative therapy to explore the concrete details of an event or unique outcome.

They focus on observable action and sequence.

They ask:

* what happened
* when it happened
* where it happened
* who was involved
* what people did
* what happened next
* how the sequence developed

Landscape of action questions help ground the conversation in lived experience before moving into meaning, values and identity.

They are often used alongside landscape of meaning questions.

Together, they support re-authoring conversations and preferred story development.

== Purpose of this technique ==

The purpose of this technique is to build a detailed account of events.

It helps people:

* describe what happened clearly
* identify moments of difference
* notice actions that may have been overlooked
* map sequences and responses
* identify unique outcomes
* prepare for meaning-making questions
* connect small actions to preferred stories

== When to use this technique ==

Use landscape of action questions when:

* a unique outcome has appeared
* the therapist needs more detail
* the person speaks in general descriptions
* a story needs grounding in specific events
* the therapist wants to map a sequence
* re-authoring conversations are beginning
* the work needs to move from vague meaning to concrete action

== How to use this technique ==

Ask for specific details.

Stay close to the event.

Avoid moving too quickly into interpretation.

Once the event is clear, the therapist can then move towards landscape of meaning questions.

For example:

First ask:

“What happened next?”

Then later ask:

“What does this say about what matters to you?”

== Example prompts / questions ==

* What brought you here?
* What was happening then?
* Can you give me a step-by-step account of the episode?
* When did you first notice it?
* Who was there?
* What did you do first?
* What did the other person do?
* What happened next?
* What did you notice was different?
* How did the problem affect you?
* What did others do when the problem came into the family home?
* What was the first sign that something different was happening?
* How did the episode end?

== Non-clinical example ==

A person says they “handled a difficult meeting better than usual”.

The therapist asks what happened before the meeting, what the person did first, what was said, how others responded, and what happened afterwards.

This helps identify the actions that made the difference possible.

== Clinical example ==

A family says that a recent argument did not escalate.

The therapist asks who was present, what each person said, who paused, what happened next, and how the conversation ended.

These details help the family notice specific actions that interrupted the usual pattern.

== What this technique can open up ==

Landscape of action questions can open:

* unique outcome development
* sequence mapping
* scaffolding conversations
* landscape of meaning questions
* re-authoring conversations
* recognition of agency
* clearer understanding of interactional patterns
* practical future planning

== Risks, cautions and ethical considerations ==

These questions can feel like interrogation if asked too quickly or too many at once.

The therapist should use curiosity and pacing.

The therapist should avoid treating the account as a factual investigation. The focus is therapeutic meaning, not forensic accuracy.

Different family members may remember events differently. This can be explored respectfully.

== Questions before using this technique ==

* What event am I exploring?
* Is the person ready to describe it in detail?
* Could detailed recall feel overwhelming?
* What level of detail is useful?
* How can I avoid sounding investigative?
* What meaning questions may follow?

== Questions during use ==

* Am I staying close to the event?
* Is the person becoming clearer or overwhelmed?
* Are important actions becoming visible?
* Are differences appearing?
* Do I need to ask another person’s perspective?
* Is it time to move to meaning and identity?

== Questions after use ==

* What actions became visible?
* What sequence was mapped?
* What unique outcome appeared?
* What values might be connected to these actions?
* What landscape of meaning questions should follow?
* How could this event support a preferred story?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]
[[Systemic epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Brief Solution Focused]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Re-authoring#Landscape of Action|Landscape of action]]
[[Re-authoring#Landscape of Identity|Landscape of meaning]]
[[Unique outcomes]]
[[Stories lived vs stories told]]
[[Preferred story#Agency|Agency]]
[[Resistance]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Meaning-making]]
[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]

== Related methods ==

[[Landscape of action and identity mapping]]
[[Unique outcome development]]
[[Scaffolding conversations]]
[[Re-authoring conversations]]
[[Alternative story development]]
[[Preferred story development]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Brief Solution Focused pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]
[[Lev Vygotsky]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. Norton.

== Notes / source material ==

Landscape of action questions are usually strengthened by landscape of meaning questions.

The action tells us what happened; the meaning explores why it matters.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Identity conclusions

2026-08-19T23:19:24Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Identity Conclusions =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Identity conclusions are the understandings people develop about who they are based on the stories they tell about their lives, their relationships and their experiences.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Narrative Therapy proposes that people do not simply experience events—they interpret them. As experiences are linked together over time, people begin drawing conclusions about themselves. These conclusions shape identity.

Identity conclusions are rarely formed from a single event. Instead, they emerge through repeated experiences that become organised into stories.

For example, repeated experiences of criticism may contribute to conclusions such as:

* "I'm not good enough."
* "I'm a burden."
* "I'm weak."

Likewise, repeated experiences of care, perseverance or courage may contribute to conclusions such as:

* "I'm someone who keeps going."
* "I'm compassionate."
* "I'm dependable."

Narrative Therapy does not assume that identity conclusions are objectively true. Rather, they are viewed as conclusions that have become persuasive because particular stories have been privileged over others.

Therapy therefore seeks to understand:

* how identity conclusions developed
* which experiences support them
* which experiences contradict them
* how alternative conclusions might emerge through preferred stories

As preferred stories become richer, new identity conclusions become possible.

----

== Supporting concepts ==

This concept incorporates the following supporting concepts:

* Dominant identity conclusions
* Preferred identity conclusions
* Identity revision
* Witnessed identity

=== Dominant identity conclusions ===

Dominant identity conclusions arise from problem-saturated stories.

These conclusions often become rigid and self-perpetuating because new experiences are interpreted through them.

Examples include:

* "I'm a failure."
* "Nobody likes me."
* "I'm always the problem."
* "I'm broken."

Narrative Therapy becomes curious about how these conclusions developed rather than treating them as facts.

----

=== Preferred identity conclusions ===

Preferred identity conclusions emerge from richer stories that reflect a person's values, intentions and lived experience.

Examples include:

* "I'm someone who cares deeply."
* "I'm resilient."
* "I keep trying even when life is difficult."
* "I'm learning to trust myself."

These conclusions are not imposed by the therapist. They emerge collaboratively through therapeutic conversations.

----

=== Identity revision ===

Identity conclusions are continually open to revision.

As people reconnect with neglected experiences and preferred stories, their understanding of themselves naturally changes.

Narrative Therapy therefore treats identity as evolving rather than fixed.

Identity revision is gradual and is supported through repeated conversations, meaningful relationships and therapeutic documentation.

----

=== Witnessed identity ===

Identity conclusions become more influential when they are recognised by others.

Family members, friends, colleagues and communities often help strengthen preferred identities by acknowledging qualities that people struggle to recognise in themselves.

This connects identity development with Outsider Witness Practice, [[Re-membering]] and Narrative Documents.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Many people seek therapy because they have come to understand themselves through painful identity conclusions.

These conclusions often influence:

* confidence
* relationships
* emotional wellbeing
* decision-making
* future aspirations

Narrative Therapy does not argue against these conclusions.

Instead, it broadens the conversation by exploring experiences that reveal alternative understandings.

Over time, preferred identity conclusions become increasingly credible because they are grounded in lived experience rather than wishful thinking.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A newly qualified manager believes she is "not a leader."

Through conversation she recalls supporting colleagues, resolving conflict calmly and encouraging new team members.

These experiences contribute to a revised identity conclusion organised around leadership, empathy and responsibility.

----

== Clinical example ==

A young person referred for anxiety repeatedly describes himself as "weak."

During therapy he recalls protecting a younger sibling, attending school despite fear and speaking honestly about his struggles.

As these experiences are connected, an alternative identity conclusion develops:

''"I am someone who acts with courage even when I am afraid."''

This conclusion gradually becomes more influential than the original story of weakness.

----

== Core insight ==

Identity conclusions are not fixed truths.

They are conclusions drawn from stories, and as stories change, identity can change.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* Which identity conclusions currently dominate?
* What stories support these conclusions?
* Which experiences appear to have been overlooked?
* Which preferred identity themes have already emerged?
* How might today's conversation contribute to identity revision?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* What have these experiences led you to believe about yourself?
* Where did that conclusion come from?
* Has there been a time when that conclusion did not fit?
* What might these alternative experiences suggest instead?
* Which conclusion feels more consistent with your values?
* Who would recognise this preferred version of you?
* What conclusion would you like to become more influential?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Which identity conclusions were explored?
* Which preferred conclusions began to emerge?
* What experiences supported these conclusions?
* Which relationships could strengthen them?
* What should be explored next?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Narrative identity]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Problem-saturated story]]
* [[Re-authoring]]
* [[Unique outcomes]]
* [[Externalising]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Re-authoring conversations]]
* [[Thickening the plot|Thickening preferred stories]]
* [[Re-membering conversation]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Landscape of Identity Questions]]
* [[Unique outcome questions|Unique Outcome Questions]]
* [[Therapeutic letter]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. New York: W. W. Norton.

----

== Notes ==

Identity conclusions sit at the intersection of Narrative Identity, Preferred Stories and [[Re-authoring]]. They represent the understandings people reach about themselves through the stories they live by. Narrative Therapy seeks neither to replace negative conclusions with positive affirmations nor to persuade people to think differently. Instead, it helps people develop richer identity conclusions that are grounded in authentic experience, meaningful relationships and preferred values.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Feedback

2026-08-19T23:19:23Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Feedback =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Feedback refers to the way information about behaviour or change returns into a system and influences what happens next. It comes in two distinct forms — [[Feedback#Negative feedback|negative feedback]], which corrects a deviation back towards the familiar pattern, and [[Feedback#Positive feedback|positive feedback]], which amplifies a deviation further away from it.

In systemic therapy, feedback helps explain how relational patterns are maintained, amplified, stabilised or changed within families and wider systems.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 2 — CONCEPTS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Feedback is a core cybernetic and systemic concept. It describes how a response within a system affects future responses. Feedback can happen through words, tone, silence, withdrawal, reassurance, escalation, avoidance, closeness, distance or repeated routines.

In family therapy, feedback helps practitioners understand how patterns continue over time. A behaviour does not simply happen once; it is responded to, interpreted, and fed back into the system — and every response is itself part of what happens next, not a neutral, separate reaction to it.

== Two kinds of feedback ==

Feedback splits into two distinct forms, and the names are easy to misread since neither means "good" or "bad" the way they do in everyday speech — think of them as working like plus and minus signs in an equation, not moral judgements.

=== Negative feedback ===

Negative feedback cancels a deviation out and pulls the system back to where it started.

'''The clearest physical example is a thermostat.''' A room gets too warm → the thermostat detects this deviation from the set temperature → it triggers the air conditioning → the room cools back down to the set point. Nothing new happens; the system simply corrects itself back to where it was calibrated to be.

'''A quick family example:''' a teenager stays out later than usual one night. Their parents react with worry and a stricter curfew. The teenager, not wanting the conflict, goes back to their old, earlier curfew the following week. The deviation has been cancelled out — the family is back exactly where it started.

Negative feedback is what maintains [[Homeostasis]] — it can be genuinely protective and stabilising, but it is also the mechanism behind families feeling "stuck" returning to the same unhelpful pattern no matter how much they consciously want change.

=== Positive feedback ===

Positive feedback amplifies a deviation instead of cancelling it out — pushing the system further in the same direction, not back towards where it started.

'''The clearest physical example is microphone feedback''' — the screeching squeal you get when a microphone is placed too close to its own speaker. A tiny sound goes into the microphone, comes out of the speaker louder, goes back into the microphone, comes out louder still, and within a second or two it's a piercing squeal. Nothing is correcting the sound back to quiet; each pass through the loop makes it bigger than the last.

'''A quick family example:''' a teenager stays out later than usual one night. Their parents react with worry and start texting repeatedly to check in. The teenager, feeling suffocated, stays out even later the following week to get some space — and the parents, now more worried, text even more. Each round makes the next round bigger, not smaller.

Positive feedback isn't inherently a problem. The same amplifying mechanism that can escalate a family's distress can also amplify a genuinely helpful change — a small success noticed and responded to warmly can build into real, lasting momentum. The mechanism is the same either way; what differs is which direction it's amplifying.

== Why this concept matters ==

Feedback matters because it helps practitioners notice what keeps a pattern going, or what makes it grow. Rather than only asking "why is this person doing this?", the therapist can ask "what response does this behaviour receive, and how does that response affect what happens next — does it cancel the pattern out, or amplify it further?"

This is useful for formulation, family work, supervision and network consultation because it helps map the relationship between action, response and repeated pattern.

== Non-clinical example ==

Someone decides to start going to bed earlier, to improve their sleep. Two different households respond very differently to the exact same attempted change:

'''Negative feedback path:''' their housemate keeps the television on loudly and turns on the kitchen lights at the same late hour as always, unaware anything has changed. The person can't sleep through the noise and light, gives up after a few nights, and returns to their old late bedtime.

''loop:'' attempt change (earlier bedtime) → environment stays the same → change is undone → back to the original pattern

'''Positive feedback path:''' in a different household, the first earlier night leaves the person noticeably more energetic the next day. They notice this, feel encouraged, and go to bed even earlier the second night — the change builds rather than getting cancelled out.

''loop:'' attempt change → small positive result noticed → response reinforces the change → change grows bigger, not smaller

Same starting decision, two entirely different outcomes — depending on whether the surrounding system corrects the deviation away or amplifies it further.

== Clinical example ==

A teenager starts wanting to spend more evenings with friends instead of at family dinners — a small move towards independence. How the family responds determines which of two very different paths follows:

'''Negative feedback path:''' parents feel anxious about this shift and respond with guilt ("we barely see you anymore"), extra questions about where they're going, and visible disappointment each time they leave. The teenager, uncomfortable with the tension this creates, starts attending family dinners again at the old frequency, and the push for independence quietly drops.

''loop:'' teenager moves toward independence → parents respond with guilt and pressure → teenager reverts to old behaviour → family pattern restored to what it was before

'''Positive feedback path:''' in a different family, the parents' anxiety instead leads them to increase monitoring — more calls, more questions, more visible worry. The teenager experiences this as pressure and pulls away further, which makes the parents more anxious, so they monitor even more closely, pushing the teenager further away still.

''loop:'' teenager moves toward independence → parents increase monitoring → teenager withdraws further → parents' anxiety increases → parents monitor even more → teenager withdraws further still

The first family's system absorbs the deviation and pulls itself back to its familiar shape — negative feedback in action, even though the "problem" the family might eventually bring to therapy is precisely this difficulty tolerating the teenager's independence. The second family doesn't return to its previous pattern at all — each pass through the loop produces more distance and more anxiety than the one before. This is exactly the kind of escalating spiral that often brings families to therapy.

== Exploring this in practice ==

A note on status: the questions below are illustrative examples of how this concept might be explored in conversation — they are not a separately documented, named technique from Bateson, Wiener or von Foerster's own published work. The concept itself is well-documented; this list is offered as a practical starting point, not a citable clinical protocol.

* What happened first, and who responded, and what did that response lead to?
* Where does the loop come back around to its starting point?
* What differences has this system already absorbed before, and what might register as new?

== Core insight ==

Every response entering a system shapes what is likely to happen next — no response is neutral. Some responses cancel a deviation out and stabilise the old pattern (negative feedback); others amplify a deviation and grow the pattern, for better or worse (positive feedback). Neither word means "good" or "bad" — they describe direction, not value.

== Questions before a session ==

* What repeated responses may be feeding back into the problem, and in which direction — cancelling it out, or amplifying it?
* What short-term solutions may be maintaining the difficulty?
* What familiar pattern does this system keep returning to, and what pulls it back there?
* What seems to be getting bigger here, and since when?
* What wider systems may be providing feedback, such as school, services or social care?

== Questions during a session ==

* What happens after the problem behaviour appears, and how do others respond?
* Does the response reduce distress briefly but maintain — or worsen — the problem over time?
* What brought things back to "normal" last time someone tried to change something?
* What response might feed a bigger version of this pattern next time?
* Has a small good moment ever been amplified the same way the difficulty has been?

== Questions after a session ==

* What feedback loop became clearer today, and which direction was it moving in?
* Did I help the family see the pattern without blaming any one person for it?
* What small change might this system actually be able to tolerate?
* How did my own response feed into the system I was observing?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Cybernetic epistemology]]
[[Systems epistemology]]
[[Systemic epistemology]]
[[Communication epistemology]]
[[Complexity epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Cybernetics]]
[[Milan]]
[[Strategic]]
[[Structural]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[CMM]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Homeostasis]]
[[Circular causality]]
[[Recursive sequences]]
[[Interactional patterns]]
[[Relational patterns]]
[[Problem-maintaining sequence]]
[[System perturbation]]
[[Stability and change]]
[[Rules of the system]]
[[Morphostasis]]
[[Morphogenesis]]
[[First-order change]]
[[Second-order change]]
[[Escalation]]
[[Amplification]]

== Related methods ==

[[Feedback#Exploring this in practice|Feedback loop exploration]]
[[Systemic pattern tracking]]
[[Circular hypothesis building]]
[[Problem-maintaining sequence#Exploring this in practice|Problem-maintaining sequence exploration]]
[[Relational pattern assessment]]
[[Family pattern exploration]]
[[Recursive sequences#Exploring this in practice|Recursive sequence mapping]]
[[System perturbation#Exploring this in practice|System perturbation mapping]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Feedback#Exploring this in practice|Feedback loop questions]]
[[Circular questioning]]
[[Pattern recognition#Exploring this in practice|Pattern questions]]
[[Recursive sequences#Exploring this in practice|Sequence questions]]
[[Punctuation#Exploring this in practice|Punctuation questions]]
[[Interactional pattern questions]]
[[Difference that makes a difference#Exploring this in practice|Difference that makes a difference questions]]
[[Homeostasis questions]]
[[System perturbation#Exploring this in practice|System perturbation questions]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Cybernetics pathway]]
[[Strategic pathway]]
[[Milan pathway]]
[[Structural pathway]]
[[CMM pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Norbert Wiener]]
[[Gregory Bateson]]
[[Paul Watzlawick]]
[[Don Jackson|Don D. Jackson]]
[[Janet Beavin Bavelas]]
[[Lynn Hoffman]]
[[Salvador Minuchin]]
[[Mara Selvini Palazzoli]]
[[Gianfranco Cecchin]]

== Key texts / references ==

* Wiener, N. (1948). ''Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine''. MIT Press.
* Bateson, G. (1972). ''Steps to an Ecology of Mind''. University of Chicago Press.
* Watzlawick, P., Beavin Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). ''Pragmatics of Human Communication''. Norton.
* Hoffman, L. (1981). ''Foundations of Family Therapy: A Conceptual Framework for Systems Change''. Basic Books.
* Minuchin, S. (1974). ''Families and Family Therapy''. Harvard University Press.
* Dallos, R., & Draper, R. (2015). ''An Introduction to Family Therapy: Systemic Theory and Practice''. Open University Press.

== Notes / source material ==

Feedback is a bridge concept between cybernetics, communication theory, systemic formulation and clinical pattern mapping. Neither "negative" nor "positive" is a value judgement — in cybernetic language, negative feedback cancels a deviation out (restoring stability, for better or worse), and positive feedback amplifies a deviation further (escalating a pattern, for better or worse). This page was previously split across three separate pages (Feedback, Negative feedback, Positive feedback); the two sub-concepts were merged in here as sections, with the originals archived, so the full picture lives in one place.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Externalising

2026-08-19T23:19:23Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Externalising =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Externalising is a defining concept and therapeutic practice within Narrative Therapy that separates people from problems, allowing difficulties to be understood as influences upon people's lives rather than as defining characteristics of their identity.

----

== Expanded definition ==

Externalising is one of the foundational ideas of Narrative Therapy, developed by [[Michael White]] and [[David Epston]]. It represents both a philosophical position and a therapeutic practice that fundamentally changes how problems are understood.

Traditional psychological approaches often describe people using diagnostic or personality-based language, such as "an anxious child", "a depressed adult" or "an aggressive teenager". Narrative Therapy challenges this way of thinking by proposing that people are never identical to their problems.

Instead, problems are understood as entities, influences or relationships that affect people's lives. Rather than asking, ''"Why are you anxious?"'', the therapist becomes interested in questions such as:

* How has Anxiety been influencing your life?
* When did Anxiety first become influential?
* What helps Anxiety become stronger?
* When does Anxiety lose its influence?
* How have you already responded to Anxiety?

This shift in language changes the therapeutic relationship. The person is no longer viewed as defective or disordered but as someone engaged in an ongoing relationship with a problem that can be understood, challenged and transformed.

Externalising therefore reflects a broader ethical commitment within Narrative Therapy to reduce blame, resist pathologising descriptions and privilege people's knowledge of their own lives.

Rather than locating difficulties inside individuals, Narrative therapists become curious about the relationships between people, problems, families, communities and wider cultural contexts.

Externalising creates opportunities for people to recognise that their identities are always richer than the problems they experience.

----

= Supporting concepts =

The following supporting concepts are integrated within Externalising:

* Problem as separate from the person
* Naming the problem
* Problem influence
* Person influence
* Relative influence

----

== Problem as separate from the person ==

The central principle of externalising is expressed in Michael White's well-known statement:

> '''The person is not the problem. The problem is the problem.'''

This statement represents far more than a therapeutic technique. It reflects an ethical and philosophical position that rejects reducing people to diagnoses, behaviours or difficulties.

When problems become fused with identity, people frequently describe themselves using statements such as:

* I am anxious.
* I am lazy.
* I am a failure.
* I am broken.
* I am difficult.

These descriptions often become dominant identity conclusions that restrict possibilities for change.

Externalising separates these descriptions from identity.

Instead of:

''"I am anxious."''

therapy becomes interested in:

''"How has Anxiety been affecting your life recently?"''

Instead of:

''"I'm an angry person."''

therapy explores:

''"When does Anger attempt to take over?"''

This subtle linguistic shift creates emotional distance from the problem while preserving respect for the person's lived experience.

Families also benefit from this separation.

Parents and children frequently stop blaming one another and instead begin working together against the influence of the problem.

----

== Naming the problem ==

Externalising conversations often begin by collaboratively identifying a name for the problem.

Rather than imposing diagnostic labels, Narrative therapists encourage names that fit the person's own experience.

Some people choose familiar names such as:

* Anxiety
* Depression
* OCD

Others create names that feel more personal, for example:

* The Bully
* The Worry Monster
* The Dark Cloud
* Mr Perfect
* The Critic
* The Boss

The chosen name should help people talk about the problem as something that has influence rather than as something that defines who they are.

Importantly, the name remains open to change.

As therapy develops, people sometimes discover that the original name no longer captures their experience. Renaming the problem can itself become evidence that the person's relationship with it has changed.

----

== Mapping the influence of the problem ==

Once the problem has been externalised, the therapist explores the ways in which it has influenced the person's life.

Rather than asking about symptoms alone, Narrative Therapy becomes curious about the broader effects of the problem across multiple areas of life.

Examples include:

* relationships
* friendships
* family life
* education
* work
* confidence
* emotions
* hopes
* dreams
* future plans
* daily routines

Questions are designed to develop a detailed understanding of how the problem operates.

Examples include:

* When does the problem become strongest?
* Who notices it first?
* What does it encourage you to believe?
* What relationships has it affected?
* What opportunities has it tried to take away?
* What does it persuade you to do?

These conversations create a detailed map of the problem's operation while avoiding blame or judgement.

----

== Mapping the influence of the person ==

Narrative Therapy gives equal importance to exploring how the person influences the problem.

Even when problems appear overwhelming, therapists remain curious about occasions when people have resisted, challenged or limited the problem's influence.

Initially these moments may appear small or insignificant.

For example:

* getting out of bed despite Depression
* attending school despite Anxiety
* apologising despite Anger
* asking for help despite Shame

Rather than dismissing these events, Narrative Therapy treats them as important evidence that the person's identity cannot be reduced to the problem.

Questions may include:

* What did you do that made the problem weaker?
* How did you manage that?
* What helped you respond differently?
* What does this tell you about yourself?
* Who would recognise this version of you?
* What has the problem not been able to take away?

These conversations gradually strengthen people's sense of agency while avoiding suggestions that they are responsible for creating the problem.

----

== Relative influence ==

Externalising conversations move continually between the influence of the problem and the influence of the person.

This process is known as '''mapping the relative influence'''.

Instead of asking whether the problem or the person is stronger, Narrative Therapy explores how this relationship changes across different contexts, relationships and moments in time.

The aim is not to prove that the problem has disappeared but to understand the ongoing interaction between the person and the problem.

This balanced exploration often reveals overlooked strengths, preferred responses and emerging alternative stories.

Relative influence provides the bridge between Externalising and later Narrative practices such as identifying unique outcomes, developing preferred stories and re-authoring identity.

----

== Why this concept matters ==

Externalising represents a profound shift in how therapists understand psychological and relational difficulties. Rather than asking what is wrong with a person, Narrative Therapy asks how problems have come to influence a person's life and relationships.

This shift has several important consequences.

First, it reduces blame and shame. When people are no longer defined by the problem, conversations become less defensive and more collaborative. Family members often move from blaming one another to working together against the influence of the problem.

Second, externalising supports agency. By separating the person from the problem, it becomes possible to recognise occasions when the person has already resisted or limited the problem's influence. These moments provide the foundation for developing preferred stories.

Third, externalising broadens therapeutic possibilities. Rather than attempting to eliminate symptoms, therapy becomes interested in changing the relationship between the person and the problem.

Finally, externalising reflects the ethical position that people are always more than the difficulties they experience. Identity is understood as complex, evolving and relational rather than fixed or pathological.

----

== Non-clinical example ==

A university student repeatedly describes herself as "lazy" because she struggles to begin assignments.

Rather than accepting this identity description, the therapist invites her to describe the influence of "Procrastination."

Together they explore when Procrastination becomes strongest, what it persuades her to believe and when it loses influence.

As the conversation develops, the student remembers occasions when she completed difficult work despite Procrastination's efforts to delay her. These experiences begin to challenge the dominant identity story of being "lazy" and instead support a preferred story of determination and persistence.

----

== Clinical example ==

A twelve-year-old boy is referred because of severe anxiety about attending school.

Initially both he and his parents describe him as "an anxious child."

The therapist invites the family to explore Anxiety as something separate from the boy.

Together they map:

* how Anxiety prepares for school each morning
* what Anxiety whispers before lessons
* how Anxiety affects friendships
* when Anxiety becomes quieter
* how family members have already helped reduce Anxiety's influence

Over time, the family begins referring to Anxiety rather than to the boy as the problem. This reduces conflict between parents and child while strengthening the boy's sense of agency and creating opportunities for developing preferred stories of courage and perseverance.

----

== Core insight ==

Externalising does not deny people's suffering.

Instead, it creates enough distance from the problem for people to become curious about their relationship with it.

This curiosity opens possibilities for recognising strengths, values, commitments and alternative identities that have previously been overshadowed by the problem.

----

== Questions before a session ==

* How has the problem become incorporated into the person's identity?
* What language is currently being used to describe the problem?
* How might externalising reduce blame within this system?
* Which relationships appear most influenced by the problem?
* What opportunities might exist for developing agency?

----

== Questions during a session ==

* If the problem had a name, what would it be?
* When did you first notice the problem entering your life?
* What does the problem encourage you to believe?
* Who notices the problem most?
* When does the problem become strongest?
* When is its influence weaker?
* How have you already responded to it?
* What does your response tell you about the kind of person you are?
* Who would recognise this version of you?
* What has the problem not been able to take away?

----

== Questions after a session ==

* Did the conversation successfully separate the person from the problem?
* Was blame reduced?
* What examples of agency emerged?
* Which preferred identity themes became visible?
* What questions could further strengthen the person's influence over the problem?

----

== Related epistemologies ==

* [[Social constructionism]]
* [[Systemic epistemology]]
* [[Poststructuralist epistemology]]

----

== Related schools and models ==

* [[Narrative]]
* [[Collaborative Therapy|Collaborative]]
* [[Dialogic|Dialogical]]

----

== Related concepts ==

* [[Problem-saturated story]]
* [[Preferred story]]
* [[Unique outcomes]]
* [[Re-authoring]]
* [[Narrative identity]]
* [[Identity conclusions]]

----

== Related methods ==

* [[Externalising conversation]]
* [[Landscape of action and identity mapping|Mapping the influence of the problem]]
* [[Unique outcome development|Exploring unique outcomes]]

----

== Related techniques ==

* [[Relative influence questions]]
* [[Statement of Position Map]]
* [[Unique outcome questions]]

----

== Related pathways ==

* [[Narrative pathway]]

----

== Key theorists / contributors ==

* [[Michael White]]
* [[David Epston]]

----

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. New York: W. W. Norton.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. New York: W. W. Norton.

----

== Notes ==

Externalising should be understood as both a philosophical orientation and a therapeutic practice. While it is operationalised through externalising conversations, its significance extends beyond any single intervention. It reflects Narrative Therapy's commitment to viewing people as separate from problems and to creating conversations that support dignity, agency and preferred identity development.

Externalising also serves as the foundation for many other Narrative practices, including identifying unique outcomes, re-authoring conversations, thickening preferred stories and re-membering conversations. For this reason, it is best understood as one of the central organising concepts of Narrative Therapy rather than simply a therapeutic technique.

----

'''Give feedback on this page:''' [SystemicWiki [[Feedback]] Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor)

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Externalising conversation

2026-08-19T23:19:23Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Externalising conversation =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

[[Externalising]] conversation is a narrative method that separates the person from the problem so that the problem can be explored, named, questioned and responded to.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 3 — METHODS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Externalising conversation is a central method in narrative therapy.

It is based on the idea that the person is not the problem; the problem is the problem.

Rather than describing a person as anxious, angry, defiant or depressed, externalising conversation helps describe the problem as something that is affecting the person, the family or the relationship.

For example:

* “She is anxious” may become “anxiety has been interfering with her life.”
* “He is angry” may become “anger has been taking over in difficult moments.”
* “This family is broken” may become “conflict has been getting between family members.”

Externalising conversation helps create space between identity and problem. This space can make it easier to explore the effects of the problem, the person’s responses to it, and the values, skills and relationships that may support resistance to the problem.

White himself described the therapist's stance during externalising conversation through the metaphor of an '''investigative reporter''' — someone whose inquiry aims to expose the workings of power and privilege behind a problem, without stepping into problem-solving, reform, or direct confrontation. This positions the therapist's engagement as genuinely curious and purposeful, but deliberately not neutral about the problem itself — closer to exposing how it operates than to remaining detached from caring whether it continues.

Externalising does not remove responsibility. Instead, it creates a less blaming and more curious way to understand the problem and its influence.

== Purpose of this method ==

The purpose of this method is to reduce blame, shame and problem-saturated identity descriptions.

It helps people and families examine the problem as something affecting them rather than something that defines them.

Externalising conversation can support agency by helping people notice how they already resist, challenge, escape, reduce or respond differently to the problem.

It also helps families move from blaming one another towards joining together in curiosity about the problem’s effects.

== When to use this method ==

Use this method when:

* the person is being described as the problem
* the family is stuck in blame
* problem labels have become part of identity
* a young person feels defined by symptoms or behaviour
* professional language is narrowing how the person is seen
* shame is blocking conversation
* the family needs a less blaming way to talk about difficulty
* the therapist wants to explore the effects and influence of the problem

== How this method works ==

Externalising conversation usually begins by separating the person from the problem.

The therapist listens carefully to the person’s own language and helps identify an experience-near name for the problem.

The therapist then maps the influence of the problem on the person’s life, relationships, identity and future.

The conversation also maps the influence of the person on the problem by exploring moments of resistance, refusal, protest, skill, care or agency.

The method often moves between the present, the past and the future.

It can begin with what is happening now, explore how the problem developed over time, and then consider what future responses may become possible.

== Non-clinical example ==

A person says:

“I am lazy because I never get things done.”

An externalising conversation might explore “the stuckness” or “the pressure” rather than treating laziness as the person’s identity.

The therapist may ask when the stuckness appears, what it gets the person to believe, what it stops them doing, and whether there are times when the person manages to reduce its influence.

== Clinical example ==

A family describes a child as “angry”.

An externalising conversation may help the family speak about “anger taking over” rather than “an angry child”.

The therapist may ask when anger shows up, what anger gets the child to do, how anger affects family relationships, and whether there are times when the child keeps anger from taking charge.

This can help the family see the child as more than anger and begin to notice care, fairness, fear, frustration or attempts to be heard.

== Step-by-step process ==

# Meet the person apart from the problem.
# Begin in the here and now.
# Move into the past where relevant.
# Move towards the future.
# Separate the person from the problem.
# Name the problem using experience-near language.
# Map the influence of the problem.
# Evaluate the effects of the problem.
# Justify the evaluation.
# Map the influence of the person on the problem.
# Identify resources, resistance and agency.
# Translate discoveries into future action.

== Questions before using this method ==

* Is the person being described as the problem?
* What problem labels are being used?
* What words does the person or family use for the difficulty?
* Could externalising reduce shame or blame here?
* What risks are there if I externalise too quickly?
* How can I preserve responsibility while separating identity from the problem?
* What cultural, relational or professional meanings shape the problem description?

== Questions during use ==

* What name would you give this problem?
* When did the problem first enter your life?
* What was going on when it first appeared?
* What does the problem try to get you to believe about yourself?
* What effects has the problem had on your life and relationships?
* Who else has been affected by the problem?
* Are there times when the problem has less influence?
* What have you done that the problem would not have wanted you to do?
* What helps you resist or reduce the problem’s influence?

== Questions after use ==

* Did externalising language fit for the person or family?
* Did it reduce blame or create more distance from the problem?
* Did I use the family’s own language?
* Did I avoid making the problem sound like a separate real object in an unhelpful way?
* Did I preserve responsibility and accountability?
* What unique outcomes or acts of resistance became visible?
* What method or technique would deepen the work next?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]
[[Systemic epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]
[[Post-Milan]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Externalising|Externalisation]]
[[Externalising#Problem as separate from the person|Problem as separate from person]]
[[Problem-saturated story#Dominant stories|Dominant story]]
[[Problem-saturated story]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Unique outcomes]]
[[Preferred story#Agency|Agency]]
[[Resistance]]
[[Experience-near naming|Experience-near definition]]
[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]
[[Positioning]]
[[Language games]]
[[Meaning-making]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Externalising questions]]
[[Problem naming]]
[[Experience-near naming questions]]
[[Mapping the influence of the problem questions]]
[[Mapping the influence of the person questions]]
[[Evaluation questions]]
[[Justification questions]]
[[Future action questions]]
[[Externalising metaphors]]
[[Unique outcome questions]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Power and culture pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]
[[Stephen Madigan]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. Norton.
* Madigan, S. (2011). ''Narrative Therapy''. American Psychological Association.

== Notes / source material ==

Externalising conversation should be used carefully.

Some people may find externalising language freeing, while others may find it strange or artificial. The therapist should follow the person’s language and check whether the externalised description fits.

Externalising should not be used to avoid accountability. It is possible to separate a person from a problem while still exploring responsibility, repair and the effects of actions on others.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Dominant discourse

2026-08-19T23:19:23Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Dominant discourse =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Dominant discourse refers to the socially and culturally accepted ways of thinking, speaking and understanding that shape how people interpret themselves, others and the world. In [[Narrative]] therapy, dominant discourses are recognised as powerful influences that organise identity, relationships and lived experience.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 2 — CONCEPTS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Narrative therapy is grounded in the poststructural philosophy of [[Michel Foucault]], who argued that knowledge and power are inseparable. Rather than treating knowledge as neutral or objective, Foucault proposed that societies develop dominant systems of knowledge — discourses — that determine what is considered true, normal, healthy or acceptable. A discourse is more than language; it's a socially organised way of thinking that shapes perception, behaviour and identity, spanning dominant ideas about mental health, parenting, gender, success, intelligence and family life.

These discourses become so familiar that they're often experienced as objective truths rather than culturally produced understandings. Narrative therapy invites curiosity about them rather than accepting them unquestioningly — a parent who believes they are "failing" may be measuring themselves against unrealistic cultural expectations of perfect parenting, rather than any genuine personal shortfall.

== Why this concept matters ==

Without recognising dominant discourse, therapy risks individualising problems that are largely social, cultural or political — asking not only "what is happening to this person?" but "which ideas about normality, success or identity are influencing this person's story?"

== Non-clinical example ==

A university student repeatedly believes they are "not successful enough" because they compare themselves with peers on social media. Exploring the dominant discourse equating personal worth with productivity and constant self-improvement allows the student to develop a more personally meaningful understanding of success.

== Clinical example ==

A mother referred because of persistent guilt describes herself as "a terrible parent." Rather than accepting this conclusion, the therapist explores dominant cultural expectations surrounding motherhood — beliefs that good mothers should always be available, patient and emotionally resilient — helping the mother separate cultural expectation from her own actual values.

== Core insight ==

Many of the stories people tell about themselves were never entirely their own — understanding dominant discourse creates opportunities to question inherited assumptions and author more preferred ways of living.

== Questions before a session ==

* Which dominant social ideas may be influencing this family?
* Are problems being individualised when they may be socially organised?

== Questions during a session ==

* Where do you think that idea came from?
* Who benefits from people believing this?
* Does this belief fit with your own values?

== Questions after a session ==

* Which dominant discourses became visible?
* Which preferred values emerged?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Systemic epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Cultural narratives]]
[[Problem-saturated story]]
[[Externalising]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Subjugated knowledge]]
[[Absent but implicit]]

== Related methods ==

[[Externalising conversation]]
[[Re-authoring conversations]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Deconstruction questions]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michel Foucault]]
[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]

== Key texts / references ==

* Foucault, M. (1977). ''Discipline and Punish''.
* Foucault, M. (1980). ''Power/Knowledge''.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''.

== Notes / source material ==

Rebuilt (August 2026) from a legacy page format that predated the vault's current standard template — removed YAML frontmatter, a duplicate feedback prompt, and excessive section dividers. Two broken links were corrected: "Deconstructive questioning" to the real existing [[Deconstruction questions]], and a reference to a non-existent "Landscape of Identity Questions" technique was removed rather than left broken.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Definitional ceremony

2026-08-19T23:19:23Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Definitional ceremony =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Definitional ceremony is a narrative method where a person or group tells a preferred story and has that story witnessed, acknowledged and reflected back by others.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 3 — METHODS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Definitional ceremony is a narrative practice influenced by the work of anthropologist [[Barbara Myerhoff]] and developed in narrative therapy by [[Michael White]].

It involves creating a structured context in which a person, family or group can give expression to important stories of identity, value, survival, resistance, care or change.

Outsider witnesses listen and then respond in a particular way, focusing on what stood out, what images or phrases moved them, what it connected with in their own lives, and how they have been affected.

The person or family then has the opportunity to respond to the witness responses.

Definitional ceremony helps preferred stories become more visible, socially recognised and richly described.

== Purpose of this method ==

The purpose of this method is to support the public or relational acknowledgment of preferred identity.

It can help people:

* feel seen beyond the problem story
* experience their values as recognised
* strengthen preferred stories
* reduce isolation
* mark important transitions
* honour survival, resistance or care
* build community around change

== When to use this method ==

Use this method when:

* a preferred story is ready to be witnessed
* the person wants others to hear a different story
* there is a meaningful transition or ending
* community or family witnessing would be helpful
* the problem story has isolated the person
* change needs to be socially acknowledged
* witnesses can participate safely and respectfully

== How this method works ==

A definitional ceremony usually has three parts.

First, the person, family or group tells their story.

Second, outsider witnesses respond using a careful witnessing structure.

Third, the person, family or group reflects on what it was like to hear the witness responses.

The therapist facilitates the process and protects the dignity, consent and safety of everyone involved.

== Non-clinical example ==

A community group invites people who have completed a difficult training programme to share stories of what helped them continue.

Witnesses reflect on the values they heard, the images that stayed with them, and how the stories affected their own sense of possibility.

This creates public recognition of effort and identity.

== Clinical example ==

A young person who has been known mainly through a risk story shares how they have been working to reconnect with school, repair relationships and resist self-critical thoughts.

A small group of carefully chosen witnesses listens and reflects on the courage, care and hope they heard.

The young person then speaks about what it was like to be seen in this way.

== Step-by-step process ==

# Clarify the purpose of the ceremony.
# Gain informed consent from the person or family.
# Decide who will tell the story.
# Choose witnesses carefully.
# Prepare witnesses for their role.
# Invite the story to be told.
# Ask witnesses to respond using a respectful structure.
# Invite the person or family to respond to the witnesses.
# Reflect on the meaning and effects of the ceremony.
# Consider creating a therapeutic document to preserve the story.

== Questions before using this method ==

* What story is ready to be witnessed?
* Who should be present?
* Is the process safe and consensual?
* What might feel exposing or risky?
* What preparation do witnesses need?
* What cultural or relational meanings should be considered?

== Questions during use ==

* What story would you like others to understand?
* What values are important in this story?
* What stood out to you as you listened?
* What image or phrase stayed with you?
* What did this connect with in your own life?
* How were you moved by hearing this?
* What was it like to hear these reflections?

== Questions after use ==

* Did the ceremony strengthen the preferred story?
* Did the person feel seen and respected?
* Did the witnesses remain within their role?
* Was consent and emotional safety maintained?
* What should be remembered or documented?
* How might this story continue to be supported?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Relational epistemology]]
[[Dialogical epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Dialogic]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Community Systemic Practice]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Definitional ceremony]]
[[Witnessing questions|Witnessing]]
[[Outsider witness practice|Outsider witness]]
[[Preferred story]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Thickening the plot]]
[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]
[[Relational responsibility]]
[[Meaning-making]]
[[Stories lived vs stories told]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Witnessing questions]]
[[Outsider witness questions]]
[[Re-authoring questions]]
[[Thickening questions]]
[[Preferred story questions]]
[[Reflective comments]]
[[Therapeutic letter|Therapeutic letter questions]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Power and culture pathway]]
[[Family and relational dynamics pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[Barbara Myerhoff]]
[[David Epston]]
[[David Denborough]]
[[Alice Morgan]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* Myerhoff, B. (1982). Life history among the elderly: Performance, visibility, and remembering. In J. Ruby (Ed.), ''A Crack in the Mirror: Reflexive Perspectives in Anthropology''. University of Pennsylvania Press.
* White, M. (1995). ''Re-authoring Lives: Interviews and Essays''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Denborough, D. (2008). ''Collective Narrative Practice''. Dulwich Centre Publications.
* Morgan, A. (2000). ''What Is Narrative Therapy? An Easy-to-Read Introduction''. Dulwich Centre Publications.

== Notes / source material ==

Definitional ceremony should not be used casually.

It can be powerful, but it requires careful consent, preparation and emotional safety. The aim is not performance for its own sake, but meaningful recognition of identity, values and preferred stories.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>

Deconstruction

2026-08-19T23:19:23Z

Dsi.ionescu: 1 revision imported: Initial import: Narrative pathway pilot

= Deconstruction =

<blockquote>
'''This project grows through feedback'''

This wiki develops the way systemic ideas do — through feedback and circularity, not a fixed final version. If this page helped, confused, or fell short, that's worth knowing. [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScrBMoa6DxSrVKz8yJSHonEA7jK_Ho0CIWqgH2ppkRN7omVjA/viewform?usp=publish-editor Give feedback →]
</blockquote>

== Short definition ==

Deconstruction is a narrative method for questioning taken-for-granted ideas, labels, assumptions and dominant discourses.

== Level ==

[[LEVEL 3 — METHODS]]

== Expanded definition ==

Deconstruction is used in narrative and poststructuralist practice to examine how meanings are constructed rather than treating them as fixed truths.

It helps people ask where a particular idea came from, who benefits from it, who is disadvantaged by it, and what alternatives may be possible.

In therapy, deconstruction may be used to explore labels such as:

* “attention-seeking”
* “manipulative”
* “resistant”
* “non-compliant”
* “good parent”
* “normal family”
* “successful child”
* “strong person”

The method does not simply argue against these ideas. Instead, it makes their history, power and effects more visible.

Deconstruction is especially useful when families or professionals are caught in narrow descriptions that feel natural or unquestionable.

== Purpose of this method ==

The purpose of this method is to loosen the power of fixed meanings and dominant discourses.

It helps people see that some ideas are socially, culturally and professionally produced rather than simply true.

It can create space for alternative meanings, preferred stories and more ethical descriptions.

== When to use this method ==

Use this method when:

* a label has become powerful
* professional language is narrowing identity
* cultural assumptions are shaping the problem story
* family members feel trapped by expectations
* power or social context needs to be explored
* a dominant discourse is being treated as common sense
* the therapist wants to open space for alternative meanings

== How this method works ==

The therapist gently explores the origin, meaning and effects of an idea or label.

The method asks:

* where the idea came from
* who introduced it
* who repeats it
* what it makes visible
* what it hides
* who benefits from it
* who is harmed or constrained by it
* what other descriptions may be possible

Deconstruction works best when it is curious, respectful and collaborative rather than confrontational.

== Non-clinical example ==

A person says:

“I should be successful by now.”

Deconstruction may explore where this idea of success came from, who defines success in this way, what effect it has on the person, and what alternative meanings of success might fit better with their life and values.

== Clinical example ==

A young person is described as “manipulative”.

A therapist may deconstruct this word by asking what people mean when they use it, when it first appeared, what effect it has on how adults respond, and what other descriptions may also fit.

The conversation might open possibilities such as distress, fear, protest, attachment need, communication difficulty or attempts to regain control.

== Step-by-step process ==

# Identify the dominant idea, label or assumption.
# Ask what the word or idea means to different people.
# Explore when and where the idea first appeared.
# Notice who uses the idea and in what contexts.
# Explore the effects of the idea on identity and relationships.
# Ask what the idea makes visible and what it hides.
# Explore who benefits and who is constrained by the idea.
# Invite alternative descriptions or meanings.
# Connect alternatives to values, context and lived experience.
# Use the new meanings carefully and respectfully.

== Questions before using this method ==

* What idea or label needs deconstructing?
* Is this idea being treated as obvious or natural?
* What power relations support this idea?
* Who benefits from this description?
* Who is constrained or harmed by it?
* How can I question the idea without shaming the person using it?

== Questions during use ==

* What does this word mean to you?
* Where did this idea come from?
* Who first used this description?
* What happens when this word is used?
* What does this description make people notice?
* What does it make harder to see?
* Who benefits when the situation is described in this way?
* What other words might fit better?

== Questions after use ==

* Did I help loosen a fixed meaning?
* Did I avoid turning deconstruction into argument?
* Did I attend to power and context?
* What alternative meanings emerged?
* Did the family recognise these meanings as useful?
* What dominant discourse still needs exploring?

== Related epistemologies ==

[[Poststructuralist epistemology]]
[[Narrative epistemology]]
[[Social constructionism]]
[[Postmodern epistemology]]
[[Critical epistemology]]
[[Anti-oppressive epistemology]]

== Related schools and models ==

[[Narrative]]
[[Systemic Therapy]]
[[Conversational]]
[[Dialogic]]
[[Post-Milan]]
[[Feminist Family Therapy]]

== Related concepts ==

[[Problem-saturated story#Dominant stories|Dominant story]]
[[Dominant discourse]]
[[Language games]]
[[Meaning-making]]
[[Narrative identity|Identity construction]]
[[Positioning]]
[[Power]]
[[Social location]]
[[Cultural narratives]]
[[Alternative story]]
[[Relational responsibility]]

== Related techniques ==

[[Deconstruction questions]]
[[Language questions]]
[[Meaning-checking questions]]
[[Power questions]]
[[Positioning questions]]
[[Context#Exploring this in practice|Context questions]]
[[Externalising questions]]

== Related pathways ==

[[Narrative pathway]]
[[Power and culture pathway]]
[[Conversational pathway]]
[[Dialogic pathway]]
[[Reflexive practice pathway]]

== Key theorists / contributors ==

[[Michael White]]
[[David Epston]]
[[Michel Foucault]]
[[Kenneth Gergen]]
[[Jill Freedman]]
[[Gene Combs]]
[[Harlene Anderson]]

== Key texts / references ==

* White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). ''Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends''. Norton.
* White, M. (2007). ''Maps of Narrative Practice''. Norton.
* Foucault, M. (1972). ''The Archaeology of Knowledge''. Pantheon.
* Foucault, M. (1977). ''Discipline and Punish''. Pantheon.
* Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). ''Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities''. Norton.
* Gergen, K. J. (1999). ''An Invitation to Social Construction''. Sage.

== Notes / source material ==

Deconstruction should be used with humility.

It is not about proving someone wrong. It is about exploring how meanings are made, how they affect people, and whether more dignifying or useful meanings can become available.

<blockquote>
'''Review status'''

'''Status:''' Open for review

'''Review history:'''

''(No reviews yet.)''
</blockquote>