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