What's still missing in brief Therapy

the contribution of solution emotions and body

Dr Robert McNeilly

“What’s missing?” in Brief Therapy.

Brief Therapy originated from the pioneering approach of the American psychiatrist, Milton Erickson. De Shazer and O’Hanlon have added their own style, and more recently Miller and Duncan have provided solid statistical evidence for the important elements contributing to the effectiveness of this approach. Until recently, it was thought of as superficial, but is now mainstream as the time and cost benefits are compelling.

Erickson’s mantra of tailoring the therapy to the client is evidenced by Miller and Duncan who claim that 85% of the effectiveness of any therapy approach is due to client factors – their previous experiences, untapped resources, and broader life experiences.

The question emerges “How can we best reconnect a client with their natural resourcefulness?”. Problem solving asks “What’s wrong?” to be fixed. Solution generating asks “What’s missing?” that we can find, reconnect with, learn.

When we ask a client about their likes, what they enjoy, what they are good at, we have the possibility of evoking a solution experience, rich with resources, and relevant to the individual client.

The Contribution of Solution Emotions in Brief Therapy.

Much of the benefits result from the intentional use of language forms - questions which presuppose strengths and abilities, and then helping to translate these into concrete experiences.

Emotions have been give a secondary place, as evidence for importance of an issue, or sometimes evidence for a move towards a solution. We see a client cry, and we ask about what’s important here, or we see a client smile, and we take that as evidence of a useful shift. Language leads, and the emotions follow.

Maturana claims that emotions are predispositions for action - in different emotions, we are differently able to take different clusters of action. A client who is fearful may be unable to face a situation, while if they were curious, a whole new range of options appear. When we look at emotions this way, we can ask a client about what actions constitute their unwanted emotion, giving them more influence over it, and much more importantly, we can explore how they might prefer to feel, and by exploring the actions that constitute this preferred emotion, they can have access to this preferred, solution emotion.

For example, asking the miracle question can be expanded beyond questions of what would be different, and include how would you be feeling differently now the problem has gone. This additional set of questions can give added texture to the possible solution, assisting with the client’s learning, and making it more accessible.

Emotions can lead, so experience can follow.

The Contribution of a Solution Body in Brief Therapy.

The body has also been relegated to a secondary position in Brief Therapy. As with emotions, we can observe “body language” to indicate an area of problem, and observe a change in the client’s body as evidence for some shift towards a solution. The language leads, and the body follows.

As well as this, if we approach the body as embodiment of an emotion – an emotion that has taken over the body, and limiting options, then we can explore how the client’s body might be in a solution experience.

As with emotions, asking the miracle question can include how would your body be – what posture or movement might be different now the problem has gone. This additional set of questions can give further texture to the possible solution, further assisting with the client’s learning, and making it even more accessible.

The body can lead, and experience can follow.