The Narratives Which Connect…

The Therapist’s Family of Origin

From about the mid 1960s Murray Bowen saw that it was necessary to include the therapist’s own family in the understanding of family therapy. Bowen was puzzled about how little help he had got from the psychoanalytic tradition to deal with the problems he experienced with people that were closest to him, his own family (Kerr, 1984, p. 5 and 7). In 1967 Bowen presented his own family of origin instead of an academic paper at a conference in Philadelphia (Young et al, 2003, p. 132). The first published article on the need to work with the therapist’s family of origin was written by Bowen and published in 1968 (Lieberman, 1987 p. 207ff).

In the years to come, some work was done and articles and books were written about working with the family of origin from the transgenerational perspective of Bowen. Bowen also claimed that those of his trainees who “conducted ongoing differentiation work within their own families became better therapists” (Young et al, 2003, p. 132). In 1972, Guerin and Fogarty published the first systematic attempt to describe both the work on one’s own family and the task of the family therapy supervisor of such work. In the UK, the first attempts to work with the family of origin in training occurred in the mid 70’s, and Lieberman explored a model in 1980.

In Norway, Bowen’s transgenerational theory has had little influence and his theory has not been a part of the curriculum in family therapy education in Norway². Probably this is because Bowen’s theory is closely linked to psychodynamic theory and for many years, the idea that systemic family theory should be “pure” or “clean” and not mixed with either behavioural or psychodynamic theory has held sway. The Bowenian approach to working with the family of origin in family therapy training is therefore not well known in Norway.

The Pattern which Connects

The scientist and communication theorist Gregory Bateson was in his work looking for pattern connecting living creatures (Bateson, 1979, p. 8). Bateson elaborated this concept by saying: “The pattern which connects is a meta-pattern. It is a pattern of patterns. It is that meta-pattern which defines the vast generalization that is indeed the patterns which connect” (Bateson, 1979, p. 20).

In this research project, I am looking for the patterns which connect narratives from our own personal and private life with narratives from family therapy practice. The narratives that I want to study in this context are the interrelations between therapists’ private and personal narratives and their professional narratives. I here use the word “narrative” in a general sense, and I do not link it to any family therapy tradition. I use it as it is defined in the dictionary (Ordnett.no) as “story,” “tale,” “plot” or “storyline”. In this sense, I will look for the narratives which connect private and personal life with life as a family therapist.

Frameworks that Form the Background for the Project

Two positions can be seen as embodying the classic division in contemporary philosophy, exemplified by the technical and mechanistic views of the Enlightenment and the humanistic, subjective and contextual framework of Gregory Bateson and others.

Very few teachers in the field of family therapy training in Norway have worked with pedagogical theory and curriculum development. This means that most teachers in family therapy education in Norway master the bodies of knowledge that belong to their profession and to the field of family therapy. Discussions of pedagogy and educational policy are not central in family therapy education, and the lack of debate in this area has an influence on how our education programmes are designed. The student’s own personal and private background is an example of a topic that is for the most part left out of family therapy education programmes.

As already mentioned the first published article on the need to work with the therapist’s family of origin was written by Murray Bowen and published in 1968 (Lieberman, 1987, p. 207ff.). In subsequent years, a great deal of work was accomplished in this field, and articles and books were written about working with the family of origin from Bowen’s perspective especially in the United States. It was a time when there was general agreement that exploration of the therapist’s own family in association with personal therapy led to one being a better family therapist (Munson, 1984, p. 63). Working with the family therapist’s own family was not only linked to the Bowenian way of doing therapy and training therapists, but also to systemic, strategic and structural family therapy (Forman, 1984; Aponte, 1992).

The Current Situation in the UK and the USA

The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) has, for example, included in its ethical standards the requirement that therapists “… provide services to diverse populations and that they be competent to do so.” To achieve this, professionals also have to cultivate the links between their own personal background and their clinical practice because The AAMFT build on the idea that personal culture and personal values influence clinical practice (Halevy, 1998, p. 233).

In the UK, the Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice (AFT) refers to Personal and Professional Development³ (PPD) as follows:

“Personal and professional development: – at present there is no requirement for students to undertake personal therapy although many do so. In a systemic training there is a strong emphasis on small group experience to explore the interaction between the personal and professional. Students are required to be open to and participate in such exploration of, for example, their own family of origin and key influences in their lives.” (Information on Training, Information Sheet, Revised September February 2007 at http://www.aft.org.uk/training/-documents/InformationOnTrainingSept-2007.pdf).

In this text, the message is not clear. It states, “…at present there is no requirement for students to undertake personal therapy although many do so.” Should they? In the UK the details on accreditation of family therapy education are presented in the AFT Blue Book. In the chapter on clinical practice (p. 13, §4), personal and professional development is described as something that “…should be addressed in all domains of the course but particularly in the supervision group and personal and professional development groups.”⁴

The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT) drew up a framework for family therapy education in 1974. In 1978, the United States Office of Education officially recognised this framework. This recognition is also valid in Canada. According to the AAMFT´s “Accreditation standard”⁵ (Version 10.3) this framework consists of accredited programmes in family therapy that comprise twelve main areas. The title of Area III is: “Individual Development and Family Relations”. It says that family therapy training should include: “… content on individual development across the lifespan” and “…will include content on family development across the lifespan.”

One example of why it is necessary to work with personal development and family relations can be found in the AAMFT´s ethical requirement to provide services to diverse populations. Culturally competent therapists are those who understand “their own assumptions and biases and who can communicate effectively with colleagues and clients like and unlike them – students must be willing to examine facets of themselves that they are not required to expose in many other courses” (Halevy, 1998, p. 234).

This is an example of one area of personal life and personal experience that could be applicable to family therapy education and training. It has never been included in a training programme in Norway, although during the past thirty years our society has grown to include many groups from different nations and cultures.

Many examples could be cited to understand and clarify the lack of interest in and energy devoted to working with the relationship between a professional’s personal and private background and the practical or clinical fields. Examples could be cited from the educational programmes for nurses, psychologists, social workers and medical doctors, or from the criteria used to authorise various types of clinicians. However, I will focus on psychotherapy research to illustrate my point. I believe that the field of psychotherapy research illustrates how it is possible on the one hand to claim that the connection between clinical practice and the therapist’s personal and private life is crucial, and on the other hand to ignore it almost completely.

The Current Situation in Norway

Norwegian authorities do not give any certification of family therapists or other psychotherapists. The medical and the psychological union certify on behalf of the Government. This means that the Government does not have any criteria for recognition (Jensen, 2005).

For the time being, there are seven family therapy education programmes in Norway. These programmes last from one year part-time to four years part-time. One of the programmes offers a masters degree in family therapy and systemic practice and another program has asked for this recognition from the Government. One of the education programmes⁶ has currently developed and implemented a PPD module. The other programmes do not offer any regular PPD-work.