| |
| |
| |
| |
Many therapists are just vague. Virginia, however, used general statements in a directed way to bring about change. Right at the start of the session in Satir Step by Step Virginia says:
How about Casey and Margie and Lucy and Lisa and Coby and Betty... I remembered! Susie... Oh, I missed one. Come on up—any chair you like—and we can move it around. Nothing's in concrete. (1983, p.16)
Virginia 's statement that “nothing's in concrete” means “anything can be changed,” and clearly refers to the seating arrangement. However, because she says it as a generalization—what linguists call a “non-referring noun phrase”—it also functions as a statement about the family and its communication. Statements like this prepare family members to think that change is possible and that they can have the kind of lives they want.
After she identified some of the family's sensitive issues, Virginia would talk about them in general terms, using pronouns like “people,” the universal “we,” “those things,” “something,” etc. An example is her response to the family's concerns about anger. Virginia says:
You know that whenever we get mad it's hard to see anyhow. (1983, p. 22)
You were mad. Well, those things happen sometimes. (1983, p. 26)
I think we all have to struggle with that. (1983, p. 38)
We learn from whatever our experiences are. OK? It's not because it is bad, it's just that we learn certain things. (1983, p. 82)
And in a funny way I have a hunch that when people don't know how to say what they want, and don't know what to do to get it, fighting is the easiest way. See, I think if we don't know how to do what we really want and we do know how to fight, that does help us a little, but the pains are great in it. (1983, p. 94)
Even when the context indicated what she was referring to, Virginia discussed difficult issues in a general way without tackling them directly with the person who brought them up. She then redefined, refrained, taught general principles, or joked about trivial examples—all without directly engaging the person who had the problem, and without putting him “on the spot.” Using this technique early in the session allowed her to build a foundation for change. Later she could tackle the problem directly with the people involved, knowing that she had already made changes that cleared the way for completing the work. Since Virginia had connected humor with the general statements and examples, it was also easier to bring people back to humor if they got stuck in being too serious.
The only way a person can understand a general statement is for him to search through his own experiences to find those that fit. If a statement is broad enough, nearly any experience in the overall category can fit. General statements invited all family members—as well as the audience or observers when Virginia taught publicly—to consider their own experiences with the same issue. So while Virginia might have appeared to be intervening with only one family member, she was actually working with all other members and anyone else within earshot. Since everyone in the family was invited to make internal changes with the same issue, they often came to shared understandings that brought them closer together.
Virginia's style of redescribing a problem in a general way made it easy for observers to be drawn into working with their own similar personal issues and experiences. This aspect of her work made it particularly difficult for those studying her to remain detached enough to notice exactly what she did, and how she did it so precisely.
| |
| |
| |
| |
