这是用户在 2024-6-11 19:11 为's%20No%20Bullshit%20Therapy%20%E8%A... 保存的双语快照页面,由 沉浸式翻译 提供双语支持。了解如何保存?

A Mandate for Honesty: 诚实的义务:

Jeff Young’s No Bullshit Therapy
杰夫·杨(Jeff Young)的无废话疗法

Ron Findlay 罗恩·芬德利

Jeff Young talks about having been trained to be formal with clients, and his gradual realisation that he could return to the more direct ways of speech he learned as a child, and combine that with warmth. He found that clients and fellow professionals welcomed a therapist who did not ‘beat around the bush’. Together, Jeff and Ron talk about when directness is appropriate, and how directness needs to be modified for particular clients.
杰夫·杨(Jeff Young)谈到了自己接受过正式对待客户的培训,并逐渐意识到他可以回到他小时候学到的更直接的说话方式,并将其与温暖相结合。他发现,客户和其他专业人士都欢迎一位不“拐弯抹角”的治疗师。Jeff 和 Ron 一起讨论了何时适合直接性,以及如何为特定客户修改直接性。

Keywords: directness in psychotherapy, genuineness in psychotherapy, therapeutic contract

Ron: So today we are going to talk about, what would you call it — an approach to therapy?

Jeff: Yeah, it’s probably an approach, or an attitude to therapy.

Ron: Have you given it a formal name?

Jeff: ‘No Bullshit Therapy’.

Ron: How did you get the name?

Jeff: I guess partly it came from working with a particular type of client who was usually male and reluctant to be in therapy; often ‘partner mandated’ to use Shane Weir’s term, and therapy not being his favourite activity. And I just found that saying that I took a ‘No Bullshit’ approach seemed to break through some of the constraints or fears the client had, so that’s where the approach and term came from.
杰夫:我想部分原因是与一种特定类型的客户合作,这些客户通常是男性,不愿意接受治疗;经常使用Shane Weir的术语来“授权”合作伙伴,而治疗不是他最喜欢的活动。我刚刚发现,说我采取了“不废话”的方法似乎突破了客户的一些限制或恐惧,所以这就是方法和术语的来源。

Ron: And who coined the term?

Jeff: I think a lot people have used a no bullshit approach. For me, I did a single session therapy presentation to a National Centrelink conference for call-staff in Canberra about five years ago, and they were really interested in my No Bullshit ideas because they deal with a lot of blokes who are reluctant to talk about their circumstances. I decided then to run a workshop on it and develop the ideas more formally, so I needed a title, and I called it ‘No Bullshit Therapy’.

Four years ago was the first time we ran it, Karen Holl and myself. It was amazing. We advertised it, a new workshop, and it was booked out two months before it was due to run. Normally it takes a couple of years to really establish a workshop.
四年前,我们第一次运行它,Karen Holl和我自己。真是太棒了。我们为它做广告,一个新的研讨会,它在运行前两个月就被预订一空。通常,真正建立一个车间需要几年时间。

Ron: When did you first use the approach?

Jeff: Oh, I probably used it on and off for I don’t know, seven or eight years. Robyn Miller used to call her therapy a bullshit-free zone. A lot of people have probably used the approach. Karen and I just tried to put some frames around it. For me, and I think Karen agrees with this, the fact that it was really popular from the start is possibly a critique on the way therapists are typically seen. There is a stereotyped view out in the public arena that therapists are wishy-washy do-gooders, who don’t always say what they mean. The increasing prevalence of ‘spin’ in the world has possibly made the public suspicious of professionals like us. I am currently working with
杰夫:噢,我可能断断续续地用了七八年。罗宾·米勒(Robyn Miller)曾经称她的疗法为无废话区。很多人可能已经使用过这种方法。凯伦和我只是试着在它周围放一些框架。对我来说,我认为凯伦同意这一点,它从一开始就非常受欢迎,这可能是对治疗师通常看待方式的批评。在公共领域有一种刻板印象,认为治疗师是一厢情愿的行善者,他们并不总是说出他们的意思。世界上“旋转”的日益盛行可能使公众对像我们这样的专业人士产生怀疑。我目前正在与

Ron Findlay, The Bouverie Centre, 50 Flemington Street, Flemington Victoria 3031. E-mail: r.findlay@latrobe.edu.au, ph: + 61 39376 9844.
罗恩·芬德利(Ron Findlay),布韦里中心,弗莱明顿街50号,弗莱明顿维多利亚3031。电子邮件:r.findlay@latrobe.edu.au,电话:+ 61 39376 9844。

Jeff Young, Community Program Manager, The Bouverie Centre, School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
Jeff Young,墨尔本拉筹伯大学公共卫生学院Bouverie中心社区项目经理。

rural drought counsellors and just the name, ‘No Bullshit Therapy’, is a real door-opener to rural people, let alone the attitude that comes with the name.

Ron: What made you decide to give it a try?

Jeff: A recent client that comes to mind, a guy called John, who I was asked to see. I knew because of the background information I had been given that he was likely to be angry, likely to be anti-therapy. He was only coming along because he wanted to have more contact with his kids. He had been in a very ugly separation. I knew that there would be some things that I would have to say to him that would challenge him and that could be hard for him to hear. I made an assumption that he would respond to a No Bullshit type approach and so I pretty much started saying, ‘I practise No Bullshit therapy’, as a way of engaging him. He asked, ‘What’s that?’ And I said that’s where I don’t bullshit you and I hope you won’t bullshit me. He straightaway said, ‘That suits me just fine’.

Ron: Was there a time then when you didn’t use a No Bullshit approach?

Jeff: Early in my career I really felt that a good therapist was articulate, always knew what was going on (or appeared to know what was going on), was very formal, the stereotypic, proper professional and I wouldn’t have had access to the no bullshit side of my personality then.

Ron: So initially you trained in a more formal professional way of doing things and then you started to discover a more casual, easier going way. How quick or slow was that transition?

Jeff: I think it has been a gradual thing. Because I didn’t come from an academic family, I always felt a little bit strange being a professional and felt like I was playing a role; it just didn’t really fit my skin well. So I probably initially over-corrected and was really formal. That didn’t last long because it just wasn’t me. Then over time I have gradually reincorporated some things that I had rejected growing up on a farm in a practical, nonacademic family. Around my early forties, in that stage of the life cycle where you tend to review your life, I started to reincorporate aspects of my upbringing that I had rejected earlier: the directness; a practical farming type approach; and a cynicism or lack of tolerance for professional jargon. I have worked in psychiatric hospitals where there was a lot of professional jargon that people seemed to hide behind, that also informed the approach. And my single session work. As you know, the basic idea of single session therapy is to make the most of each session, because it might be the only time you have together. It invites you to ‘cut to the chase’. I found that I liked that and that clients really liked it too, and so the No Bullshit approach was a natural development.
Jeff:我认为这是一个循序渐进的过程。因为我不是来自学术世家,所以作为专业人士,我总觉得自己在扮演一个角色,有点奇怪;它只是不太适合我的皮肤。所以我最初可能矫枉过正,真的很正式。这并没有持续多久,因为那不是我。然后随着时间的流逝,我逐渐重新融入了一些我在农场长大时拒绝的东西,在一个实用的、非学术的家庭中。大约在我四十岁出头的时候,在生命周期的那个阶段,你倾向于回顾自己的生活,我开始重新融入我之前拒绝的成长经历:直接性;实用的耕作方式;以及愤世嫉俗或对专业术语缺乏容忍度。我曾在精神病院工作过,那里有很多人们似乎隐藏在后面的专业术语,这也为这种方法提供了信息。还有我的单节课工作。如您所知,单次治疗的基本理念是充分利用每次治疗,因为这可能是你们唯一在一起的时间。它邀请您“切入正题”。我发现我喜欢它,客户也非常喜欢它,所以 No Bullshit 方法是自然而然的发展。

Ron: So what is No Bullshit therapy?

Jeff: There are a number of elements to it. I think, in the broadest sense, it is about negotiating the grounds, and the way in which you are going to work with someone. As Scott Miller, Lambert, and others have pointed out, at least 30% of outcome variance of therapy is attributable to the therapeutic relationship — put simply, working on the same things in an agreed upon way. More specifically, No Bullshit therapy is striving towards honesty and directness, but adding warmth and care. Often these two approaches are seen as mutually exclusive; therapists either focus on being direct and honest but risk coming across as a bit brusque, or they focus on being warm and caring but come across a bit wishy-washy. So this is a frame, a simple frame; but people in our workshops have found it helpful to ask, ‘What are ways I can be both honest and direct and warm and caring?’ To move back and forth, to integrate the two is a big element of No Bullshit therapy.
Jeff:它有很多元素。我认为,从最广泛的意义上讲,这是关于谈判的理由,以及你将与某人合作的方式。正如斯科特·米勒(Scott Miller)、兰伯特(Lambert)和其他人所指出的那样,至少有30%的治疗结果差异可归因于治疗关系——简单地说,就是以商定的方式做同样的事情。更具体地说,No Bullshit 疗法致力于诚实和直接,但增加了温暖和关怀。通常,这两种方法被视为相互排斥的;治疗师要么专注于直接和诚实,但冒着给人留下一点粗暴的印象,要么他们专注于温暖和关怀,但有点一厢情愿。所以这是一个框架,一个简单的框架;但是,我们工作坊中的人们发现,问:“我有什么方法可以做到既诚实、直接、又温暖又有爱心?来回移动,将两者整合在一起是No Bullshit疗法的一大要素。

In general, I am fascinated by finding ways to integrate opposites: trauma and resilience, hope and despair, failure and pride, directness and warmth — because I think transformation often lies in making sense of emotional contradictions. My students will tell you that I can’t help moving my hands in the shape of the Lorenz Attractor, when I encourage them to move between apparent opposites within one sentence. The Lorenz Attractor is like a 3-dimensional infinite symbol that never crosses over on itself. Edward Lorenz was a meteorologist, and the Lorenz Attractor is a beautiful graph that results from plotting nonlinear equations. It was adopted as an iconic symbol by the early chaos theorists, and to me, it symbolises the moving back and forth between seeming contradictions. For example, ‘Your family has been through the wringer these last few years and you probably feel like an absolute failure as a parent, but are there aspects of how you have responded to these difficulties, that you are proud of?’
总的来说,我着迷于寻找整合对立面的方法:创伤和韧性,希望和绝望,失败和骄傲,直接和温暖——因为我认为转变往往在于理解情感矛盾。我的学生会告诉你,当我鼓励他们在一句话中在明显的对立面之间移动时,我会情不自禁地以洛伦兹吸引子的形状移动我的手。洛伦兹吸引子就像一个三维无限符号,永远不会交叉。爱德华·洛伦兹(Edward Lorenz)是一位气象学家,洛伦兹吸引子(Lorenz Attractor)是绘制非线性方程的美丽图形。它被早期的混沌理论家用作标志性符号,对我来说,它象征着在看似矛盾之间来回移动。例如,“在过去的几年里,你的家庭经历了痛苦,作为父母,你可能会觉得自己是一个绝对的失败者,但你如何应对这些困难,有没有让你感到自豪的方面?

I’ve discovered there is also an emotional incentive for me to integrate warmth and directness. In our workshops Karen has been doing an exercise where she gets people to reflect on how their family of origin has influenced their view of directness and honesty. And as I have sat watching her do this exercise, I have reflected on my own family. My family was very direct and honest — but only about negative things, you know, what shat us off about each other — but less direct with the warmth and care. Maybe as a result, I am interested personally in how you can combine these two.

Ron: What else? 罗恩:还有什么?

Jeff: It is also about negotiating with clients what level of honesty and directness they are comfortable with. And the important thing is that it is mutual honesty and directness. You might state, ‘I prefer to be honest and direct but how do you like to work?’ And in the negotiation you make overt and visible the way you are going to work together. If the way of working is not discussed, then all the covert assumptions operate: therapists are warm and fuzzy types who aren’t going to be direct with me, and if they’re not going to be direct with me, then I’m not going to be direct with them. Or, This bloody therapist is going to be wishy-washy, I am going to be really direct, which can lead the client to come out too hard. Discussing it directly gives you a frame to negotiate within and a context for the work.

Ron: Do you usually make overt some of the stereotypes about expectations around therapy or therapists?

Jeff: I don’t emphasis that much unless I’m working with someone who is really cynical about therapy. Then I might state that I practise No Bullshit therapy early on as a way of making the cynicism overt. But you don’t have to use the term ‘bullshit’. That’s how it started out for me and it has got a bit of shock value so it is great for a workshop and it is different, but you might simply say ‘I prefer not to beat around the bush. How do you prefer to work?’ Or ‘Can I be really direct with you? I prefer to be upfront or I prefer to be honest, is that okay?’ Most clients respond, ‘That’s what I’m here for’. But you could also simply ask ‘How do you work best?’ And then negotiate. And in the negotiation you might ask, ‘Are there are some things that I can be really direct about and other areas where you want me to be more cautious?’

Ron: At what point would you start this negotiation?

Jeff: It varies; working with John I made an assumption from the start that he was going to be really anti-therapy and so I made that constraint overt right from the start, and I named the way I prefer to work. But in work with clients and families who accept therapy you might not even raise it. You might only use it when the going gets tough or when you have something difficult to say. Then you might simply ask, ‘Can I be really up-front with you?’ Or ‘Can I be direct with you?’ I used to think that by asking this I was asking permission and that I was being respectful. But a friend, Francis McCormick, during a presentation I gave in Bendigo helped me realise that I was fooling myself. Because a client can’t really say, ‘No I don’t want you to be honest’ in a therapeutic context, so the question is rhetorical. I now think what it does is act like a marker. It says, ‘Hold on a minute now I am going to talk at a more honest and direct level, so get ready. Put your defences in place, so you can hear what I have to say. Forewarned is forearmed.’ That’s all it is, a marker.
Jeff:各不相同;与约翰一起工作时,我从一开始就假设他会非常反治疗,所以我从一开始就公开了这种限制,并命名了我更喜欢的工作方式。但是在与接受治疗的客户和家庭一起工作时,您甚至可能不会提出它。你可能只在事情变得艰难或有话要说时才使用它。然后你可能会简单地问,'我真的可以和你坦诚相待吗?“或者”我可以直接和你说吗?我曾经认为,问这个是在请求许可,我是在尊重。但是,我的一个朋友弗朗西斯·麦考密克(Francis McCormick)在本迪戈的一次演讲中帮助我意识到我在自欺欺人。因为在治疗环境中,客户不能真的说,“不,我不希望你说实话”,所以这个问题是修辞性的。我现在认为它的作用就像一个标记。它说,'等一下,我要在更诚实、更直接的层面上说话,所以做好准备。把你的防御措施放到位,这样你就可以听到我要说的话。预先警告是预先武装的。仅此而已,一个标记。

Ron: You started doing it particularly with men who were sceptical about therapy. Since then have you discovered any other areas where it is particularly useful?

Jeff: I will probably offend a lot of people talking in such general terms, but I have often thought that therapy was developed by the middle class, for the middle class and there was an inherent view that the working class weren’t good at it and needed to get better at it. The No Bullshit elements come out of a working class culture and I like it that these ideas are informing the middle-class practice of therapy. I have found as I use NBT more and more, that most clients prefer honesty and directness. I saw a middle-aged woman who works as a counsellor. She was having trouble with her son and daughter-in-law. She was trying to be helpful by being empathic and warm and forgiving, which only made her son and daughter in-law more suspicious of her motives. I invited her to try a No Bullshit approach and she said, shocked but laughing, ‘Oh, you mean not tiptoe around?’ and I said ‘Yeah’. And she changed to a more businesslike approach saying, ‘I am willing to help but I can’t look after the kids on Tuesday and Thursdays because that’s when I work. I am happy to do it on the other days but you need to call me, you can’t just come over without notice.’ She found it really helped. Her son got less angry and it helped their relationship but it really challenged her counselling training and her natural style.

Ron: Any other people or places you find it particularly useful for?

Jeff: Um, it can be useful for punctuating longer-term work when you’re feeling stuck.

Ron: Have you hesitated to use it or have you got feedback that it wasn’t helpful?

Jeff: You have to be sensitive to a person’s style of language and cultural style around politeness and directness. I may only make overt a No Bullshit approach with 5 to 10% of clients. Then with a number of clients at some stage I would be saying, ‘I’d prefer to jump into it. Can I be honest with you?’. Or, ‘Can I be a bit bold, or a bit challenging?’ And with other clients I would only use it occasionally when I’m feeling stuck. With some clients you find a way of working that is culturally syntonic and you don’t have to make overt how you are going to work, they know how you work and you know how they like to work; you can say what you need to say.
Jeff:你必须对一个人的语言风格和文化风格保持敏感,包括礼貌和直接。我可能只对 5% 到 10% 的客户公开采用“不废话”的方法。然后,对于处于某个阶段的一些客户,我会说,'我更愿意跳进去。我可以对你说实话吗?“或者,”我能不能大胆一点,或者有点挑战性?对于其他客户,我只会在我感到卡住时偶尔使用它。对于一些客户,你找到了一种文化同调的工作方式,你不必公开你将如何工作,他们知道你的工作方式,你知道他们喜欢如何工作;你可以说出你需要说的话。

Ron: Do you ever worry that your directness may hurt someone?

Jeff: More that it might be a bit ‘blokey’, because I am thoughtfully honest. It is interesting though, one thing I got from reviewing the interview I did with my client John about the No Bullshit approach, was that when there is good faith, anything that is vague and general and nonspecific will be interpreted in the best possible light. For example, when you ask me, ‘Do I ever worry my directness might hurt someone?’ If there is good faith, as there is here, I’d think All right, Ron is helping me to articulate how it works and how it doesn’t. He’s helping me get my point across. But when there is bad faith, anything that is grey and general and unstated and vague will be interpreted in the worst possible light. Are you implying that I am coming across as if this works in all situations? The same happens in therapy, when there is bad or even when there is not good faith; being really direct and almost bluntly honest can really help to create trust. When there is good faith you can create trust in a range of ways, like warmth or finding out about each other, being able to chat in a comfortable way about how you are going to work; talking about confidentiality and other rules.

Ron: What would you do that would show me that you have added care and warmth to the honesty and directness?

Jeff: Partly it’s attitude. I have always had the view that if you really respect someone, you can be more challenging with them. Partly it is a personal thing too; I am more polite with people who I don’t get on well with or feel less comfortable with. It is like a paradox. People that I feel really comfortable with — I can stir them, rag them, be really direct and challenge them. It is the same sort of thing with clients and students too. If I feel that they are capable I can challenge them more but if I feel they are a bit vulnerable or a bit shaky I am more polite. I prefer to be in there challenging, I feel like that creates a more intimate or more exciting relationship; maybe getting more out of the relationship and giving more. What was the original question?

Ron: You said that NBT combines honesty, directness with warmth and care. What would I see you doing, which would show me that you have added warmth and care to honesty and directness?

Jeff: Firstly I’d be thinking, ‘I want the best for you and that is why I am challenging you’, so hopefully that would come across. As an observer you would see me trying to engage the honourable part or the good intentions of that person as I was challenging him or her. So in terms of a technique or a question style, that would be, ‘Okay so I know that you want the best for your kid and you don’t want him to be afraid of you, so I am going to have to be really direct in order to help you reassure your son that he is safe’. So it is hooking in to the person’s good intentions, the approach that Alan Jenkins has described so well. You would also see me naming the positive and the challenge in the same sentence, something like ‘Good on you for being able to talk about this stuff. I am being really direct and tough with you, but good on you for hanging in here.’ I’d be pointing out and naming the warmth or strengths as part of the challenge. You would also see it in the nonverbal interaction.
杰夫:首先我会想,'我想给你最好的,这就是我挑战你的原因',所以希望这能实现。作为一个观察者,你会看到我在挑战他或她时,试图吸引那个人的光荣部分或善意。因此,就技巧或提问风格而言,这将是,“好吧,我知道你想给你的孩子最好的,你不希望他害怕你,所以我必须非常直接,以帮助你向你的儿子保证他是安全的”。因此,它与人的善意挂钩,艾伦·詹金斯(Alan Jenkins)很好地描述了这种方法。你还会看到我在同一句话中说出积极和挑战,比如“很高兴你能够谈论这些东西。我对你真的很直接,很强硬,但你在这里待得很好。我会指出并命名温暖或力量作为挑战的一部分。你也会在非语言互动中看到它。

Ron: Are there any other clinical elements?

Jeff: Another element is the old systemic family therapy strategy that was very popular when I trained in the 1980s. Family therapists used to make overt any constraints to change and I have incorporated that idea. But rather than just make it overt, I might make a feature of it. I came up with this idea when I was filming the FaST videos. The media people had this catchphrase, ‘If you can’t hide a problem, make a feature of it’. No Bullshit therapy does the same with constraints. Rather than trying to avoid or appease a constraint, you make it overt by making a feature of it. It might translate into, ‘I haven’t lived on the streets so you probably think I have no idea about that, and you’re right, I haven’t got the faintest idea, but I may be able to help you ...’ Making a feature of it is a way of softening the constraint. A participant in one of our workshops, who worked at Centrelink, used to say to clients, ‘I know Centrelink doesn’t always reward honesty, so I don’t expect you to be honest with me, but I am going to try to be as honest as I can with you’.
杰夫:另一个因素是旧的系统性家庭治疗策略,当我在 1980 年代接受培训时非常流行。家庭治疗师过去常常对改变做出任何公开的限制,我已经采纳了这个想法。但是,与其让它变得公开,我可能会让它成为一个特征。我在拍摄 FaST 视频时提出了这个想法。媒体人有这样一句口号,“如果你不能隐藏一个问题,那就把它变成一个特色”。没有废话疗法对约束做同样的事情。与其试图避免或安抚约束,不如通过使约束成为特征来使其公开。它可能会翻译成,“我没有在街上生活过,所以你可能认为我对此一无所知,你是对的,我没有最微弱的想法,但我也许可以帮助你......”使它成为特征是软化约束的一种方式。我们一个研讨会的参与者,在Centrelink工作,曾经对客户说,“我知道Centrelink并不总是奖励诚实,所以我不希望你对我诚实,但我会尽量对你诚实”。

Ron: Okay. So there is negotiating honesty and directness and finding ways to combine these qualities with warmth and care, there is getting feedback on how that is going. There is making a feature of constraints and avoiding jargon. What else?

Jeff: They are the main clinical principles, but there have been a few spin-offs such as self-supervision. I don’t know why the ‘self’ bit, but the steps have clearly come from No Bullshit therapy. I was doing a consult with the counsellors at Banyule Community Health Centre and one of the counsellors presented a case in which she was struggling and I just asked, ‘What would you say to this client if you shot from the hip?’ The counsellor was refreshingly direct with what she said. Then I said, ‘How would you say the same thing in a nonjudgmental or nonblaming way?’ That sort of softened it a bit. Then I said, ‘What would you say if you acknowledged the client’s good intentions or strengths?’ And then, ‘What would you say if you acknowledged the constraints? Why would it be hard for the client to do what you are suggesting?’ And finally, ‘What would you specifically say or suggest or want the client to do?’ When all these steps were combined, it produced a really powerful statement. That’s how I developed self-supervision. You can take a person through these steps. I guess it is self-supervision because you provide a structure and they come up with what they’d do themselves. So it is not, ‘You should do this’, it is, ‘What would you say if you shot from the hip with this client?’ Self-supervision worked well for workers and so I developed a very similar thing for clients. I use it when one family member is really stuck with another family member or in chronic conflict.

Ron: What is honesty, what is directness?

Jeff: Yeah, it is really tricky — good question. I think one social scientist said that ‘Civilised culture relies on not being direct and honest’. So in a way we need a certain amount of indirectness and softening of honesty to get along and be civilised. I am not saying that honesty is always the best policy and there is nothing that says honesty is better than fudging it or that directness is better than politeness. People who never let anything ‘go through to the keeper’ can be hard work. In therapy you actually need a mandate to be honest. I am more honest as a therapist than I am socially with my friends. When people are having problems and are stuck in patterns that have led to ongoing problems that they haven’t been able to sort out themselves, honesty and directness can be really helpful. But you have to have a mandate to be direct. So if someone comes along saying, ‘I want to save my marriage’. You may have to say, ‘Well in order to help you save your marriage, I’m going to have to be pretty direct and honest with you about your violence. At times it might seem a bit harsh’. Your mandate for directness is linked to the client’s goal. If the client accepts that, you have a mandate. It still hasn’t answered your question though, um ... Whilst there is no objective definition of honesty or directness, everyone knows when they are not being completely honest, or not saying what they mean. And not being honest or direct, at times, especially at significant times, can hinder intimate and working relationships. As Harry Frankfurt, the author of On Bullshit points out, we all pride ourselves in having a well-developed internal bullshit detector when someone else is not being direct with us. A context that invites people to come clean, whilst being supported and not demeaned, is a powerful context for personal and relationship transformation.
Jeff:是的,这真的很棘手——好问题。我记得一位社会科学家说过,“文明文化依赖于不直接和诚实”。因此,在某种程度上,我们需要一定程度的间接性和诚实的软化,才能相处和文明。我并不是说诚实永远是最好的政策,也没有什么说诚实比捏造它更好,或者直接比礼貌更好。从不让任何事情“通过守门员”的人可能会很辛苦。在治疗中,你实际上需要一个诚实的授权。作为一名治疗师,我比与朋友交往更诚实。当人们遇到问题并陷入导致他们无法自己解决的持续问题的模式中时,诚实和直接真的很有帮助。但你必须有一个直接的任务。因此,如果有人说,“我想挽救我的婚姻”。你可能不得不说,'好吧,为了帮助你挽救你的婚姻,我必须对你的暴力行为非常直接和诚实。有时它可能看起来有点苛刻。你对直接性的要求与客户的目标有关。如果客户接受这一点,你就有了授权。不过它仍然没有回答你的问题,嗯......虽然诚实或直接没有客观的定义,但每个人都知道他们什么时候不完全诚实,或者没有说出他们的意思。有时,尤其是在重要时刻,不诚实或不直接会阻碍亲密和工作关系。正如《论废话》一书的作者哈里·法兰克福(Harry Frankfurt)所指出的那样,当别人不直接与我们沟通时,我们都为自己拥有完善的内部废话检测器而感到自豪。 一个邀请人们坦白,同时得到支持而不是贬低的环境,是个人和关系转变的有力环境。

Ron: Do you say things rather than ask things? Along the lines of how the person is affecting you or what you want them to do? I ask that question because some therapies are more directive and some are more questioning.

Jeff: Yeah, I know there are models and philosophies that say you shouldn’t give advice, or you shouldn’t say what you really think and there are great debates over whether you should or shouldn’t. I am guided by the single session frame of thinking; ‘I might not see this person again and so what do I want to ask, what to I want to share and what do I want to say that I think might be helpful?’ And I want to say it now rather than wait because I may not see them again. I will say it but I will also put it tentatively: I won’t say, ‘This is the way it is’, or ‘This is what you should do’. I would be more likely to say, ‘Look this is what I am thinking ...’ or ‘If I were you I would be thinking of doing ...’ or ‘This is what I suggest, but how does it fit with you?’ But you also have to see this in the context of having mutual honesty.

Ron: Mutual honesty? 罗恩:相互诚实?

Jeff: Yeah. One of the things that really helped working with John was that, having agreed up-front that we were going to use a No Bullshit approach, he was able to be direct with me. At one point, I had to give him feedback about his children that was really hard to give. I had to let him know that his estranged kids felt he wasn’t feeding them enough on visits, so you could imagine how sensitive that was. So when I went to give him that feedback, I actually stumbled and he said to me, ‘Remember Jeff, no bullshit’. Then I was able to say it more directly to him because we had set up that arrangement and he was able to use it against — well not against, but use it to help me be direct with him.

Ron: So if he hadn’t invited you to be direct would you have said to him, ‘I want to tell you that you are coming across too aggressively?’

Jeff: I guess I would try to find ways so he could hear that.

Ron: How would you say that?

Jeff: I would say something like, ‘Look I have got something I want to share with you, because I think if you can understand it and if you can take it on board, you will improve your kids’ confidence in you; that you can listen to them and not react in a way that is going to frighten them off. I want to say this to you because I think it is going to be helpful but I am a bit worried how you might take it.’ Sometimes I might ask what advice the client would give me about giving them feedback, but that can come across a bit too smart?

Ron: Can I put you on the spot? Would you say how that person is affecting you? Would you say ‘I am finding you too whateverin this session’?

Jeff: Yeah, if that would be helpful. I would be sort of saying, ‘Look to be really honest, and this is going to be hard to take, but I am feeling a bit frightened here’. It should be how I genuinely feel and with John we had to do that because he was coming across really angry to his son’s schoolteachers and we did negotiate a terminology, we called it intense. I told him, ‘You can be pretty intense and the teachers are probably scared of you’. I have used it with another guy who had a really loud voice, I was really frightened at times and I had to say, ‘You scare me at times, partly it is your voice’. I was very direct and in a way it is very intimate. But it can’t come out of nowhere. Ideally you set the context for directness early on, and you also provide ‘markers’ when you are about to be direct, for example, ‘Can we be really direct with each other?’ Then you give some warning, a marker, ‘Now can I give you some really direct feedback? You are coming across as scaring the living daylights out of me’. Then you add the warmth, ‘I know you want your kids to feel safe’, to the directness, ‘I am only saying this because if I am experiencing this, how are your kids experiencing you, or your wife?’ And what is the mandate? ‘Well, you wanted to have a better relationship with them. That is the only reason that I am being direct. Otherwise I have no right to be this direct or bold with you’. So it combines not only directness with warmth but also strength with constraints.

Ron: How is combining all these elements different to other approaches?

Jeff: I think in complex situations clients can get advice from professionals that respond to only one aspect of the complexity. If a client’s son is bashing holes in the wall at home, the mum can be told, ‘Kick him out or call the police’, but parents often can’t call the police because they are aware of their son’s good intentions, or they know that there is some hardship their son has had to endure, or they see their child’s underlying warmth, so they swing between being really tough and all-forgiving. They swing between the two extremes in their powerlessness. Self-supervision helps integrate all these elements, for example, ‘I know you have a lot of things go against you and it has been tough, but if you bash another hole in the wall I am going to have to call the police. I know that you don’t want to frighten me, because you have a good heart, but I feel really frightened. I know that you don’t want to do that and you have had so much go against you. In some ways I can understand why you feel like bashing a hole in the wall but it frightens me.’ Cycling through all those self-supervision steps respects the complexity of difficult situations.
Jeff:我认为在复杂的情况下,客户可以从专业人士那里获得建议,而这些建议只对复杂性的一个方面做出反应。如果客户的儿子在家里的墙上打洞,妈妈可以被告知,“把他赶出去或报警”,但父母往往不能报警,因为他们知道儿子的善意,或者他们知道儿子不得不忍受一些困难,或者他们看到了孩子潜在的温暖, 所以他们在非常强硬和宽容之间摇摆不定。他们在无能为力中在两个极端之间摇摆不定。自我监督有助于整合所有这些元素,例如,“我知道你有很多事情对你不利,这很艰难,但如果你在墙上再砸一个洞,我将不得不报警。我知道你不想吓唬我,因为你有一颗善良的心,但我真的很害怕。我知道你不想那样做,而且你已经有太多的事情反对你了。在某种程度上,我能理解你为什么想在墙上砸一个洞,但这让我感到害怕。循环完成所有这些自我监督步骤尊重困难情况的复杂性。

Ron: And does this honesty and directness — I sort of know the answer but I will ask it — extend to the way you speak to a cotherapist in a session?

Jeff: Karen and I had an interesting experience when we were preparing for an NBT workshop, so it wasn’t cotherapy but co-presenters. We were preparing the workshop and it was going along fine and then there was some level of difference, you know how it can get a bit sticky. Karen said, ‘Oh, can I be really direct with you?’ and I said, ‘Yeah, but I will be really direct back’, and we had a little sorting out, then we went back to being more polite and collegial.

Ron: Anything you want to say before we finish?

Jeff: We have another self-learning tool in our workshops where we ask participants to ask themselves, ‘What might be the major constraint to me being the best therapist I could be?’ Next we ask participants to ask themselves ‘What would I do if I made a feature of that constraint in my work?’ And the step after that is to add touches of humility, humour and honesty. I’m also working on No Bullshit selfreflection; I like the idea of combining the softness of self-reflection with the directness of No Bullshit: but it too will involve being direct and honest with yourself whilst being warm and forgiving. There is sort of an energy you get by cutting to the chase, with others and yourself, but I guess you can’t use it all the time, otherwise it loses that energy.

Ron: It sounds like you enjoy helping people.

Jeff: Yeah, I assume that is why most of us are in this profession. I guess some therapists use jargon to protect themselves or to stay in control, but more often I think

therapists don’t say what they think. I guess what No Bullshit therapy is about is striving to be as honest and direct as we can ethically be — in the client’s interest. And it really is a simple thing, that if you can create a supportive context for honesty and directness, by just stating that you like to work that way, supporting clients not by protecting them, but by striving to be authentic around difficulties and authentic around warmth and care — I think you can achieve a real intimacy. And when you are able to achieve those moments of honesty and the client knows you are doing it for them — and you know you’re doing it with their best interests at heart, those moments can be truly transformative. Those are truly beautiful moments in therapy.                      ©
治疗师不会说出他们的想法。我想 No Bullshit 疗法的意义在于努力在道德上尽可能诚实和直接——为了客户的利益。这真的是一件简单的事情,如果你能为诚实和直接创造一个支持性的环境,只要声明你喜欢以这种方式工作,支持客户不是通过保护他们,而是通过努力在困难中保持真实,在温暖和关怀中保持真实——我认为你可以实现真正的亲密关系。当你能够实现那些诚实的时刻,并且客户知道你是在为他们做这件事——你知道你是在为他们的最大利益着想,这些时刻可以真正具有变革性。这些都是治疗中真正美好的时刻。                     ©

Coming Events, Jottings and Announcements

fii 26—29 March 2008, the 16th World

Family Therapy Congress auspiced by the International Family Therapy Association will be held in Porto, Portugal. The theme is ‘Transformation and Globalization: Family Therapy in the 21st Century’. The deadline for abstracts is October 31, 2007 and all abstracts must be submitted online at www.paragon-conventions.com/ifta2008
由国际家庭治疗协会主办的家庭治疗大会将在葡萄牙波尔图举行。主题是“转型与全球化:21世纪的家庭治疗”。摘要截止日期为2007年10月31日,所有摘要必须在 www.paragon-conventions.com/ifta2008 在线提交

a 4-6 October 2007, the EFTA/AFT Conference, ‘Beyond Oppositions: Families, Communities, Cultures’ will be held in Glasgow. Each day has a theme, as follows: ‘Mind and Body’, ‘Self and System’, and ‘Cultural Integration and Differentiation’. Check AFT’s website at www.aft.org.uk
a 2007年10月4日至6日,欧洲自由贸易联盟/国库署会议将在格拉斯哥举行,题为“超越反对派:家庭、社区、文化”。每天的主题如下:“心灵与身体”、“自我与系统”和“文化融合与差异化”。查看 AFT 的网站 www.aft.org.uk

a Have you been aware of the sudden and rapid thinning of the ranks of our family therapy pioneers? Gianfranco Cecchin died in 2004, then Steve de Shazer in 2005, followed by Ivan Bozormenyi-Nagy and Lyman Wynne in 2006. Then Insoo Kim Berg in January 2007, and, more recently, Jay Haley, Paul Watzlawick and Tom Andersen within a few weeks of each other. Brian Cade and Rick Whiteside have been passing on the sad news to AieANZJFZ.
a 你有没有注意到我们家庭治疗先驱的队伍突然迅速减少?Gianfranco Cecchin 于 2004 年去世,然后是 Steve de Shazer 于 2005 年去世,随后是 Ivan Bozormenyi-Nagy 和 Lyman Wynne 于 2006 年去世。然后是 2007 年 1 月的 Insoo Kim Berg,以及最近的 Jay Haley、Paul Watzlawick 和 Tom Andersen,在几周内相继相继。布莱恩·凯德(Brian Cade)和里克·怀特塞德(Rick Whiteside)一直在向AieANZJFZ传递这个悲伤的消息。

O Centrecare Corporate offers courses on a variety of topics, for example ‘Issues in Family Dispute Resolution’ (October 30—31, @ $396.00, GST included), ‘Dealing with Challenging Clients’ (half day, October 24, @ $154.00, GST included), and ‘How to be an Effective Group Facilitator’ (21 November, @ $254.00, GST included). For further information, contact Ph. + 61 8 9288 2288, or cor-porate@centrecare.com.au or www. centrecarecorporatecom.au
O Centrecare Corporate 提供各种主题的课程,例如“家庭纠纷解决问题”(10 月 30 日至 31 日,@ $396.00,包括消费税)、“与具有挑战性的客户打交道”(10 月 24 日半天,@ $154.00,包括消费税)和“如何成为有效的团体促进者”(11 月 21 日,@ $254.00,包括消费税)。欲了解更多信息,请联系电话+61 8 9288 2288,或 cor-porate@centrecare.com.au 或www。centrecarecorporatecom.au

O Glenn Larner has been invited to Belgium by Peter Rober, who offered to arrange sponsorship. Glenn’s tour will include presentations at KCC in London, for Bertrando in Turin, and three days of workshops in Northumbria kindly arranged by expat Jeanette Neden who runs the family therapy course at the university. The tour will take in Dublin with Jim Sheean, Belfast with Isobel Reilly, and the IFTA/EFTA conference in Glasgow.
O Glenn Larner 被 Peter Rober 邀请到比利时,他主动提出安排赞助。格伦的巡回演出将包括在伦敦的KCC的演讲,在都灵的Bertrando的演讲,以及在诺森比亚举行的为期三天的研讨会,由在大学开设家庭治疗课程的外籍人士珍妮特·内登(Jeanette Neden)精心安排。这次巡演将与吉姆·希恩(Jim Sheean)一起在都柏林,与伊莎贝尔·赖利(Isobel Reilly)一起在贝尔法斯特,以及在格拉斯哥举行的IFTA/EFTA会议。

O Alistair Campbell drew our attention to research networks in 2004, in ‘How a Practice-Based Research Network Might Work’, ANZJFF, 25, 1: 52-54. For an example of such an approach, read ‘Brief Strategic Family Therapy: Lessons Learned in Efficacy Research and Challenges to Blending Research and Practice’, Family Process, 45, 2 (2006): 259-271, by D. A. Sanisteban, L. Suarez-Morales, M. S. Robbins and J. Szapocnik. The authors give valuable insights into their process.
O Alistair Campbell 在 2004 年提请我们注意研究网络,在“基于实践的研究网络如何运作”中,ANZJFF,25,1:52-54。有关这种方法的示例,请阅读“简要战略家庭治疗:功效研究中的经验教训以及混合研究与实践的挑战”,家庭过程,45,2(2006):259-271,作者:D. A. Sanisteban、L. Suarez-Morales、M. S. Robbins 和 J. Szapocnik。作者对他们的过程提供了宝贵的见解。

O Andrew Fuller identified himself as ‘psychologist and family therapist’ when he spoke about ‘Tricky Kids’ on ABC 702 Mornings. If you haven’t read his paper from ANZJFF, 25, 4: 177—182, ‘Crisis: Home-Based Family Therapy’, you will find it on our website, www. anzj ft. co m
O 安德鲁·富勒 (Andrew Fuller) 在 ABC 702 Mornings 上谈到“棘手的孩子”时称自己为“心理学家和家庭治疗师”。如果你还没有读过他的论文,来自ANZJFF,25,4:177-182,“危机:基于家庭的家庭治疗”,你可以在我们的网站上找到它,www。ANZJ ft. co m

O How well does your training program stand up to the scrutiny of male trainees? Brent A. Taylor conducted an online survey of male masters and doctoral students in MFT training in the US. Thirty-eight students (ranging from 23 to 62 years) participated from 11 states, able to say what they dared not say in their programs. For instance ‘I know the politically correct way of doing relational therapy (to get men to open up or be more like women), but I’m not sure it’s okay to challenge women to be better problem solvers or to control their emotions more effectively ...’ {The American Journal of Family Therapy, 34: 263—277, 2006).
O:您的培训计划经得起男性学员的审查吗?Brent A. Taylor 对美国 MFT 培训的男性硕士生和博士生进行了在线调查。来自11个州的38名学生(年龄从23岁到62岁不等)参加了比赛,他们能够说出他们在节目中不敢说的话。例如,“我知道政治上正确的关系疗法(让男人敞开心扉或更像女人),但我不确定挑战女性成为更好的问题解决者或更有效地控制自己的情绪是否可以......”{美国家庭治疗杂志,34:263—277,2006)。

O To bring fresh ideas to supervision, read Sigurd Reimers’ ‘Family Therapy by Default: Developing Useful Fall-back Positions for Therapists’, Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 3: 229—245. Reimers posits that we all have fall-back positions, and recommends that we analyse them to be sure they are helpful.
O 要为监督带来新的想法,请阅读 Sigurd Reimers 的“默认家庭治疗:为治疗师开发有用的后备位置”,家庭治疗杂志,28,3:229-245。Reimers认为我们都有后备立场,并建议我们分析它们以确保它们有帮助。

O With the sort of courage unlikely to find support in Australian family therapy, Russell Haber and Lita Hawley illustrate a process in which supervisees can invite family of origin members into a supervision session to deal with the supervisee’s professional dilemma (e.g. difficulty with angry clients), to achieve a ‘more flexible use of self’. Haber and Hawley’s paper ‘Family of Origin as a Supervisory Consultative Resource’ appears in Family Process, 43, 3 (2004): 373-389.
罗素·哈伯(Russell Haber)和丽塔·霍利(Lita Hawley)以在澳大利亚家庭治疗中不太可能得到支持的勇气,说明了一个过程,在这个过程中,被监督者可以邀请原生家庭成员参加监督会议,以处理被监督者的职业困境(例如,与愤怒的客户相处困难),以实现“更灵活地使用自我”。Haber 和 Hawley 的论文“作为监督咨询资源的原生家庭”发表在《家庭进程》中,43,3(2004):373-389。