Steve Andreas > Books Authored > Six Blind Elephants > Chapter 7

Context reframing

The meaning of an event depends partly on the context in which it occurs. For instance, the meaning of helping someone put on their jacket is appropriate for a 4-year-old, but would probably be categorized as an insult for a 20-year-old�unless the 20-year-old had an injured arm, or other disability. In the same way, someone�s attempt to help an older person may be perceived by them as insulting, implying that s/he is disabled.

When a behavior or response is a problem in one context, it can be useful to think of the same event in a different context in which it can be seen as positive. A different context provides a different surrounding, and this can change the meaning of the event. When the same event is seen in a different context, we often recategorize it, because the new context elicits different criteria.

For instance, a father may categorize his son�s rebellious behavior as being �stubborn.� But when he sees the same behavior in relation to his resistance to being taken advantage of by a girlfriend or salesman, he will likely categorize it in a much more appreciative way, because the consequences in a different context are very different.

One of the fundamental NLP presuppositions is that Every behavior is useful in some context. So if someone is troubled by their response at home, it can be useful to find out where that same response is a positive asset�at work, or with friends, or in an imagined context in some other time or place. When you can find one or more contexts in which the troublesome response is useful and positive, that offers a more balanced perspective that provides a good foundation for finding new choices in the context where it causes trouble.

Sometimes, of course, it is useful to change the meaning of an event from positive to negative. Someone may view their behavior as very positive, despite its unpleasant consequences or the pain it causes others. Then you can shift scope in the same ways to make these disadvantages more obvious.

For instance, an EMT�s ability to quickly assess a situation, and do what needs to be done, and tell others what to do is very valuable in the context of a life-threatening emergency. But if s/he uses that same skill at home when there is no emergency, it will prevent children from learning how to acquire that skill for themselves.

So far I have described examples of changing the context in someone�s internal images. Changing the actual external context is even more powerful in eliciting a different categorization with a different response. Bill O�Hanlon describes a couple whose marriage was �on the rocks,� because their arguments quickly escalated into nasty fights.

The counselor suggested that the next time they began an argument that seemed to be getting out of control, they should take a brief break and then meet in the bathroom. The husband should take off all his clothes and lie down in the bathtub. The wife was to stay fully clothed and take a seat next to the bathtub on the toilet. They were then to continue the argument where they had left off.

As you might imagine, it was difficult to have an argument that way. The husband felt absurd and exposed and wasn�t his usual self. The wife thought it was hilarious and couldn�t quite work up her usual head of steam. But, as the counselor suggested, for the next several weeks they dutifully performed this task each time they had an argument. After a few times of heading for the bathroom, however, they learned to modulate an argument so that it never went out of control. When things would start to get heated, one of them would glance toward the bathroom, and the other would say, �Okay, okay, let�s just calm down and see if we can talk this out.� (47, pp. 18-19)

This change of context�the different scopes of experience provided by the bathroom and the husband lying in the bathtub without clothes�naturally elicited responses in both of them that made it impossible to argue in the way that they had been.

O�Hanlon�s books are full of examples of changing the scope of a problem in space or time in order to bring about change. In addition to changing the context, you can change the timing, the sequence, how something is done, add a new element to the problem, or subtract one, etc. You can experiment freely, without having any idea of what kind of change in scope will be useful, and find out what works.

For instance, a couple who always argued when the husband came home from work decided to wait for any discussions until after he had showered and changed out of his work clothes. After that they seldom argued.

A woman who was bingeing and purging was instructed to put on her favorite shoes before bingeing. She reported that �gave her time to think about what she was doing,� and she was able to stop.

A woman who compulsively pulled out hairs from her head always chewed on the root before throwing the hair away. When she was instructed to discard the hair without chewing on it, she found it unsatisfying and stopped.

A somewhat more directed way to utilize a change of context is to think of exceptions to the problem�times when you would have expected the problem to occur, but it didn�t, and carefully examine the context of those exceptions, a method that is central to Solution Focused Therapy. What was it about those exceptions that kept the problem from happening? Once you learn that, you can deliberately add that element into the problem, and find out what happens. For instance, if the exceptions to a nasty argument all happened in the early morning, all sensitive discussions can be scheduled then.

Another NLP presupposition is that the meaning of your communication is the response that you get. Most people are focused on their intention or goal when they communicate, so they are less likely to notice how they actually communicate that intention, or how the other person responds to it. Often we are conscious of our words, but we may be much less aware of what we are communicating with our nonverbal behavior. When there is a miscommunication we often tend to blame the other person for not understanding our intention, rather than changing our communication so that the other person can understand it better.

Focusing on the other person�s response is a change of scope that increases feedback. When someone�s response indicates that they received a different message than the one you intended, that becomes a signal to change the communication�both verbal and nonverbal� until the message is received.