secret window, secret garden · secret window, secret garden ilze neethling and *caitlin some...

Ilze Neethling 2015 © 1st publish 2013. All rights reserved. 2

Secret Window, Secret Garden

Ilze Neethling and *Caitlin

Some people want to be Window wizards. They love interacting with dialog boxes.

In their free moments, they randomly press keys on their keyboards, hoping to

stumble onto a hidden, undocumented feature. They memorize long strings of

computer commands while they‟re rinsing dishes to go in the dishwasher.

(Rathbone 1997:1)

Windows, though, is not just another computer program. It is also the program

Caitlin and I used for our therapeutic conversations, creating a gateway to

alternative worlds. Windows are the gateways to alternative stories. And stories

again, are the windows of life. They let everyone “peek inside to see that they are

not alone in their suffering. It‟s that knowledge that gives them power when their

world is bleak, makes them laugh when they see their own folly, makes them cry

when tears are the only answer. Without that window, the greatest emotions are

sometimes never touched, never felt, and never shared.” (Siegel & Siegel 1988:

83-84)

This is the story of Caitlin‟s window. Caitlin has been looking through the same

window for a long time now, from inside out. The view was always the same: a

bleak, dreary sky through smudged window panes. But later, the angle started to

change. This analogue is looking out of the window, a window which now is starting

to offer a common view from an entirely different angle….an angle which renders

the common extraordinary. (King 1990:307)

*author prefers to be known by pseudonym


A window on stories

In the postmodern/post-structural paradigm we live our lives by stories (narratives)

we create in language and in relationship with others. Since we construct our own

realities in stories, we are also able to re-create those stories and choose the lives

we wish to life by more effectively. The narrative is the basic figuration process that

is used to produce the human experience of one‟s own life and action, and the

lives and actions of others. Narratives refer to stories people create and live in. For

narrative therapists, these stories consist of “events, linked in sequence, across

time, according to a plot.” (Morgan 2000: 5)

Caitlin in the window

Caitlin and Dave was barely married a year when she expected their first. She was

not sure about having children yet, but Dave insisted he wanted to start a family

immediately. During the pregnancy however, Caitlin experienced several negative

feelings towards him. They also had constant fights during which she blamed him

for everything she believed was “wrong” in her life. The situation got so bad that

Dave moved out of the house after the birth of their son, claiming that he “needed

time away to think”. Caitlin blamed herself for the fights and for

“causing” him to leave, claiming a thin description of herself as a “bitch” that

constantly zooms in on his vulnerable spots in order to put him down whenever

she can.

“Thin descriptions are often expressed as the truth about the person who is

struggling with the problem and their identity…these thin conclusions, drawn from

problem saturated stories, disempowering people as they are regularly based in

terms of weakness, disabilities, dysfunctions, or inadequacies… thin descriptions

allow little space for the complexities and contradictions of life. It allows little space

for people to articulate their own particular meanings of their actions and the

context within they occurred.” (Morgan 2000:12-13)


Caitlin as expert in the window

In Freedman and Combs (1996:30) Michael White argues that even in the most

marginalized and disempowered of lives there is always „lived experience‟ that lies

outside the domain of the dominant stories that have marginalized and

disempowered those lives [or resulted in thin descriptions]. These „outside lived

experiences‟ refers to alternative stories. Lives are multi-storied, many stories

occur at the same time and different stories can be told about the same event.

Alternative stories are those stories by which clients would prefer to live their lives

by, focusing on their strengths and abilities rather than on the negative.

Freedman and Combs (1996:16) claim “narrative therapists are interested

in……bringing forth and thicken stories that do not support or sustain problems.

As people begin to inhabit and live out the alternative stories, the results are

beyond solving problems. Within the new stories, people live out new selfimages,

new possibilities for relationships and new futures.”

I was interested in co-constructing with Caitlin an alternative story that would assist

her to break free from the hold of “the bitch” in her life. Working from a narrative

perspective though, she was to be the primary author of her alternative story. It

was not my place to impose an alternative story which might not be acceptable to

her. White (1997:131) also refers to this co-authoring of stories as a challenge to

hierarchy of knowledge that assists therapists to avoid reproducing the “gaze”

(Foucault 1973) through practices of diagnosis, evaluation and objective

documentation.

Anderson and Goolishian (1988,1990a,1992) see the therapeutic conversation as

a process striving towards what is “not yet known” (Freedman & Combs 1996:44)

and not asking questions to which we want specific answers. This implies asking

questions not generated from pre-understanding, but questions generated out of

genuine curiosity about the client‟s unique answers. This implies, acknowledging


the client‟s local experiences and local knowledges. The client is considered to be

the expert on his/her own life experiences. Caitlin then, is the expert on her own

life. I therefore tried to conduct our conversations from a not-knowing perspective

and a genuine curiosity for in-depth understanding of her story. The not-knowing

perspective creates a climate within which the client may have the experience of

being heard, confirmed and accepted. According to Anderson and Goolishan

(1992) it creates readiness to explore multiple perspectives and at the same time

endorse the co-existence thereof. The relativity of meaning itself comprises a

change in perspective. (Kotze 1994:52)

The bitch outside the window

The bitch was a dominant story in Caitlin‟s life. Already during her second letter

we managed to start talking about „the bitch‟ as an entity herself, making use of

externalizing conversations. (White 1991:29)

Externalizing was difficult in the beginning. Caitlin is a psychology honors student

and was heavily “trapped in” by traditional psychology theories. According to

Becvar and Becvar (1996:355) the idea that “the map is the territory” suggests that

people do not have a conscious awareness that the framework or map relative to

which they experience meaning, is only one possible explanation or guide to the

territory known to them as their reality. Without the perspective that the world we

experience is framework relative, we are doomed to experience problems and are

limited to attempted solutions logical to the framework we are using.

I was wondering to what extend Caitlin‟s map was shaped by traditional pathology

or social psychology theories. Her explanations for her behavior each time was

intrapsychic of nature, which seemed to bury her further in self-blame and guilt.

According to Jenkins (1990:14) traditional approaches to problems induce

diagnosis and focus on linear cause which could result in blame giving and in some


cases prevent people to accept responsibility for their behavior. Narrative therapy

moves away from viewing the problem as located inside the individual, by making

use of externalizing:

Externalizing conversations contribute to the deconstruction of a dominant story

present in a person‟s life. In the view of social construction, problems are socially

constructed and do not reside in the individual him/herself. Externalizing the

problem opens up space for people to move further away from the problem and

separate from the effects of the dominant story. It allows them space to consider

their own ideas and commitments. Personal preferences and choices become

more visible. (Morgan 2000:72)

During the externalizing process, Caitlin also touched on a very important aspect

regarding externalization: “…thinking of 'the bitch' in these terms - does it not

somehow abdicate responsibility? - making out like one's actions were under the

control of something or 'some-one' else?” To which I replied: “Caitlin, you are still

responsible for your relationship with the bitch, and the consequences of that

relationship.”

According to Caitlin, the bitch used several tactics and lies to ruin her relationship

with her husband, and to ruin her life:

June 26th

“The bitch thinks that I deserve more from life. She tells me that I have married

beneath me - at a time when I was recouping from a broken heart. She said that I

married in a desperate state. The bitch thinks that Dave is not good enough for

me. He is weak she says, and soft, but most importantly she thinks that he is too

broke to deserve a gorgeous vamp like me. The bitch points out other women and

she whispers in my ear "you are so much more stunning, slim, and intelligent than

they are and look at the men they landed". She thinks that because Dave cannot


buy me diamond rings (I'm still wearing my gran‟s wedding ring that I inherited - as

my own ring 'cause when Dave & I got married, he could not afford any other) and

expensive (or even cheap) holidays, he is NOT the right guy for me. The bitch

points out Dave's negative points like the fact that he smokes and (seemingly

overnight) developed 'smoking' lines around the eyes and mouth - AND she points

out that Dave doesn't eat a healthy diet, go to gym or lather his face in creams to

compensate for his destructive behavior. The bitch says that Dave does not

deserve to make love to a body like mine. After all - what do I run, spin and sweat

for? To be touched by flabby gut and smoky mouth? No, no, no she says. The

bitch loves money. She hates that I am not more materialistic. She hates that Dave

feels uncomfortable in the presence of our 'friends' who are lawyers, doctors,

investment bankers (we all attend the same church in which there is a strong

tendency to have 'fellowship').The fact that nothing outside of these 'fellowships'

brings Dave and the other guys together (there is no basis for friendship) really

gets the bitch's goat. The bitch helps me to be as shallow as 'the wives'. Why oh!

Why can Dave not find some basis for friendship with the guys? She hates that the

guys disregard him sometimes (most times). The bitch won't allow me to invite

anyone to our home because it is not as flashy and comfortable as others we visit.

The bitch thinks that this is Dave‟s fault. Worst of all ... the bitch makes me tell

Dave all these things when we're arguing. Dave cries - and I want to cry to ... but

the bitch won't let me.”

The bitch seduced Caitlin to succumb to these “truths” quite often. I was interested

in challenging the offered “truths” in a respectful way so Caitlin could reclaim her

happiness from the bitch‟s influence. I wanted us to clear the window panes, to

see what flowers are already growing in the secret garden obscured by the

tarnished panes. Though I was not able to see through the window myself yet, I

was convinced there must be a garden…and there simply had to be flowers there.


“Narrative therapy seeks to be a respectful, non-blaming approach to

counselling…[it] …assumes people have many skills, competencies, beliefs,

values, commitments and abilities that will assist them to reduce the influence of

problems in their lives.” (Morgan 2000:2)

This I tried to do by asking deconstructive questions (June 30th) I was wondering

where the bitch got her ideas from, who benefited by these ideas, what supported

these ideas, what was her purpose, and what she was trying to prevent Caitlin from

seeing.

“Deconstructive questioning invites people to see their stories from different

perspectives, to notice how they are constructed (or that they are constructed) to

note their limits and to discover that there are other alternative narratives...they

see that those narratives are not inevitable, that they do not represent essential

truth. Instead, they are constructions that could be constructed differently….to

unpack it or to offer the possibility of consider it from a different perspective.

Once this occurs, people can commit themselves to protesting it.” (Freedman &

Combs 1996:57)

July 13th:

“you've made me aware of the existence of 'the bitch'. Granted ... knowing about

her won't make her go away [permanently] but now at least I am aware of the things

she thinks, does, wants and I am better able not giving in to her destructive

desires.”

Throwing knowledge/power out the window

„E-therapy‟ offers the opportunity for therapeutic conversations where people do

not have readily access to direct, personal therapy, also to people who prefer


„talking on paper.‟ On June 26th Caitlin had written: I find that I communicate much

better with you via e-mail. I do seem to clamp up when I speak to you

telephonically. Like I run out of things to say.”

In the experience of several other therapists-on-line, healing relationships can be

formed online, and are, every minute of every day. Online relationships can have

a remarkable intensity and intimacy that is very real, and not imaginary.

(http:www.Pastoral therapy\Internet Therapy Is it effective.htm) “Working with a

therapist online will never replace traditional, face-to-face therapy relationships.

No one is suggesting that e-therapy is “better”. But that‟s not the point. E-therapy

is not meant to replace traditional [face to face] therapy; it is another way of caring,

one that can reach people who are not getting any other help.”

However, I found it difficult to conduct “therapy” solely by e-mail, never having the

opportunity to see Caitlin‟s facial or bodily communication which might make me

more attentive to small actions, or small nuances in the voice, to direct me to

explore different possibilities or to direct me where I may or may not go with

questioning. How to deconstruct the power relationship between the „healer and

the recipient‟ on paper, was also a new challenge.

I was therefore wondering whether Caitlin might experience some of my questions

as intrusion on her privacy. In line with Foucault‟s view on knowledge/power

(Paterson [s a]) “Power is everywhere”, I also did not want her to feel that she is

obliged to answer any question she didn‟t want to, and therefore had to check

regularly if the conversations were still going the direction she wanted it to go.

Michael White (1995:169) also claims that consulting people about how the

conversation is going for them, is one way of establishing accountability for/in the

process.

That I have been invited to share Caitlin‟s world with her at all, carries deep and

significant meaning. Sharing knowledge from one‟s own world is a gift that needs


to be treated with respect from the heart, spirit, and being by the recipient. People

tend to regard and define knowledge differently. I believe that in traditional white

practices, knowledge about people is treated as currency, the information often

used to enhance power, professional practices, or status, without considering

possible consequences to the person who shared (“supplied”) that knowledge in

the first place. In the white academic culture especially, we claim knowledge as

our „right to know” (Chamberlain & friends 1997:132-132). We assume we have

the right to ask questions, any type of questions. Asking questions about people‟s

lives from a position of „this is my right‟ also subjugate people, and objectify what

are really, people‟s lives. Foucault claims knowledge is power, and power is

knowledge. (Paterson [s a]) This contributes to an attitude of the expert versus the

other, and oppression and exploitation, and by not confronting power/knowledge

relations is not challenging that dominance but colluding with it.

Working via neither e-mail, nor can we immediately confirm and negotiate

interpretations of our shared dialogues or assume we know how our dialogue is

affecting the person emotionally or otherwise. I therefore also found it necessary

to enquire to the possible meanings Caitlin might have contributed to our

conversations, and how she experienced the therapeutic process. I also believe

we can learn a lot from our clients how to improve our practices, if only we are

willing to listen. Only by asking clients about their experiences in therapy, can we

know what interactions are helpful to them and what not. (White 1991:37) This

makes it possible for work to be evaluated, and renders the therapeutic interaction

responsive to this evaluation. (White 1995:169) Hence the expert view of the

therapist is also challenged, since it is the client who evaluates the real effects of

therapy on his/her life.

http://www.mpaterson.co.uk/foucault.html




July 15th:

“…. I've never felt judgment or rejection from you … I've come to trust you. And

also value these sessions because although I started out feeling 'weak' ... our

discoveries help me to 'uncover' strengths.”

August 12th:

“I've told you before that these sessions always bring me to a point of no return.

And that is scary because I think 'what if I cannot make it' … 'what if with all this

insight, I'm still not able to change my life'. Would that not be worse than 'not

knowing', 'ignorance is bliss‟? Yet I feel that so many things we've discussed have

made a difference to my life. In a sense I am being much more 'conscious' of the

things I say and do… I think that the only thing that's really kept me going is my

WANT to 'become better' (not in the sense that you're the healer and I am the

patient) but 'becoming better' in a way that symbolizes reaching my potential.”

I was extremely moved by Caitlin not seeing me as the “healer” and her as the

“patient”, a position most therapists are trying to move away from. Participatory

ethics strengthened my resolve to be a co-creator of her alternative story rather

than being a therapist working from a hierarchical position, suggesting linear

interventions or changes to her life. The question, “who benefits”, becomes a

central and guiding challenge. (Kotze 2002:18) Doing therapy to people can be

disrespectful and can be painful, especially since the process involves revealing

personal information. I did not want to reproduce in our conversations, the

oppression many people experience at the hand of a dominant culture or at the

hand of an „expert‟ relationship. Nor could I consider myself as “the healer” and

Caitlin as “the patient” since this would support the dichotomy of “sick versus

healthy, abnormal versus normal”, thereby maintaining and strengthening a

discourse which pathologizes human behavior and support a narrow definition of

what is considered in society as what constitutes “health”.


.Deconstructing the windows

Caitlin also mentioned that during our conversations, she has started to realize

how dependent she has become on Dave. She said that she has not previously

before realized this. This has led her to go do shopping herself one day for diapers,

milk, and so on, after work. Caitlin mentioned that Dave was extremely surprised

at her. I asked where did she think this dependency came from. What did it do to

her? What does dependency mean? And what it felt like to do all this herself? What

did this say about her?

July 15th:

“well ... I'm thinking that maybe it's not 'dependence' but just my 'typifying' roles

and acting in accordance with that. The man in the role as the 'doer of those

things'…- it would be Dave who would take the responsibility... Dave would be the

one to do it, Dave physically pays the rent (even if both of us contribute) etc. Doing

these things I make me feel that I am taking back the power. That takes practice

too because - I must admit - it's convenient having someone else take care of the

'nitty gritty'. But taking responsibility for the smaller things too, is very empowering.

It's not that I don't think I have the ability to do those things ... it's about knowing I

have the maturity to do them. Because it's not just my wanting to change particular

situations … but changing my pattern of thinking ... changes in my life have been

pervasive. Don't get me wrong - it has not suddenly become a bed of roses and

sometimes I wonder whether I've made any progress at all - but I'm not giving up -

sometimes I wish I had not started because I know that there is no going back.”

Discourses on gender roles are still prevalent in many societies today. Discourses

are ways of constituting knowledge, together with its social practices, forms of

subjectivity and power relations which adhere in such knowledges and relations

between them. Discourses indicate a public process of conversation through which


meaning is constituted. It also refers to the systematic and institutionalized ways

of speaking and/or writing, thus „making sense‟ through the use of language.

(Kotze 1994:36) Discourse is ways of thinking that become accepted truths and

norms in societies.

According to Freedman and Combs (1996:38) Foucault used the term to refer to

the “ongoing historical conversations within a society that constitute our notions of

… [reality]” Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning.

They constitute the nature of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and

emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern. Social realities therefore

construed by dominant discourses may not necessarily be “essentially true”, but

that doesn‟t stop them from having real effects on people‟s lives. Some utterly

destructive. (Freedman & Combs 1996: 36)

Jenkins (1997:35) points out that within families, the traditional distribution of status

has been along gender and age lines. Husbands have traditionally been regarded

as „superior‟ to wives, males to females, and parents to children. Those in

„superior‟ roles have traditionally been attributed ownership rights over those in

„subordinate‟ roles and have been seen as entitled to greater privilege and

deference and respect from „subordinates‟, who have been expected to maintain

the status quo by demonstrating loyalty, obedience, and support to „superiors‟.

This is the society in which many of women (and men) are raised and socialized

to conform to.

The discourse that women are inferior to men, that men are the „doers and women

the „receivers‟, seemed also to play a role in Caitlin‟s life. Caitlin was raised in a

patriarchal family set-up where her father was the head of the family with her

mother acting the complimentary submissive role. In many ways, cultural ways of

obeying God is also reflected in women‟s relationship to their men. The husband

then is seen as the authority figure, similar to the way God is seen. Caitlin has

previously, mentioned that she grew up with a very strict God. Her father was a


priest and they were brought up according to fundamentalist interpretations of the

Word of God. God had to be “obeyed at all cost”. And

Caitlin was influenced by ideas such as “…it being abhorrent to fight against the

government (Caesar) and its laws. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar‟s.” Which

then caused her “…to find it hard to stand up in the face of authority, and made her

back down before she even tried.”

I have then often wondered if this biblical supported belief in (the) man as the

„doer as things‟, and viewing him as the/an authority figure, not contributed to the

existence of the [resentful] bitch in Caitlin‟s life. I was also wondering how

uncovering the „authority/gender discourse‟ would influence her hold over Caitlin.

November 22nd:

“Previously I considered abuse and crimes against children as the worst crimes

existing …Now I think the worst crime is to steal people‟s lives…for isn‟t that what

patriarchy is doing?..…Sometimes it [secret window, secret garden] feels more like

'secret window, hidden garden'. Like the 'truth' has been hidden from me for so

long because I was looking through lenses mainly constructed by others … I think

one of the reasons some women don't want any kids might be so that they will

never have to be dependent on a man. I am striving to have this mindset. 'Not

being dependent on a man'. It‟s hard for me. I come from a place where the man

is the breadwinner, the head of the home, the strong one - the dominant party. I

think that the bitch thinks I was tricked into believing that Dave would fulfill these

functions… that I don‟t have the „power‟ myself to run my own life…Who gave

whom the right to make such „decisions‟ on my behalf?”

November 30th:

“…”All your words are but to say: you are but a woman, and your part is in the

house. But when the men [have] died in battle and honor, you have leave to be


buried in the house, for the men will need it no more. But I am … not a serving

woman…I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear either pain or death.” …”

[Caitlin‟s own accentuation] (Tolkien 2001:767)

Discourses regarding the authority of men versus women, not only contributes to

the oppression of women in general, but also set unruly high expectations to men

who then have to „perform‟ in order to maintain the expectations of the discourse.

When they do not meet society‟s expectations, men can regard themselves as

failing in masculine traits and achievement. (Jenkins 1990:44) Such “failure”

combined with the partner‟s disappointment then could contribute to relationship

and other problems between couples.

A garden in the window

Caitlin let me know that she was busy writing her „”life history” in order to see what

went wrong, how and where. (July 18th)

I do understand that in some cases traditional therapists suggest to clients to revisit

their past and to relive bad/negative experiences. This is considered to be some

sort of catharsis. Rational Emotive Therapy in particular revisits the past in order

to expose irrational or maladaptive beliefs and thoughts that stems from an

individual‟s belief system as linked to negative experiences in the past. (Sue, Sue

& Sue 1994: 80-81)

Since Caitlin is studying Psychology, I believed she must be familiar with these

theories as well. Working in a narrative paradigm, however, I believe that this could

also serve to drown the person in the problem-saturated story. It was not my place

to prevent her from doing this, though. What I did do was to request her to also

include a separate list of events that made her happy, good things that she‟s done,

successes she‟d achieved, and positive things that had happened to her.


August 7th:

“…I cannot think of anything. Why? This is what Oprah would call a 'light bulb'

moment. Is this the route of my problem? I've not been taught to think of myself

in terms of the good as well as the bad? Or in terms of the good MORE than the

bad?

* I‟m my mom's best friend. I'm a very good support base for her because I'm

always motivated and strong and she loves that. I think that she sees me being

strong-willed.

* I'm loyal to my friends, in the sense that if someone needs me I'm always

available to help and I usually stick around long after everyone else has 'washed

their hands' of the person and his/her problem. I've always been like this.

* I remember G.H. - in my matric class. His dad was an alcoholic and he came

from a very abusive home. He was labeled a 'huge problem' by all at school -

teachers and pupils. I remember befriending him (even thought I was in love with

him) and begging my parents to take him in - at least until he finished his matric

year. I brought him home with me once so that my parents could meet him. He

was so amazed that I would do something so nice for him. What he said was

“how can someone like you want to be with someone like me?”

* At primary school I was always my teachers pet. from sub A right to standard 5

(I don't know if this counts but bear with me Ilze - I'm digging really deep). Like I'm

trying to search for good things to say at a really awful person's funeral ... like in

one of those comedy dramas! --- those teachers always complimented me for

being so 'good' (attentive, obedient, quiet) - I cannot help but question if these

qualities are appropriate in LIFE school. also ... an early indication of my

subservience in the face of authority?


* I write very well. People always commented on this. My standard 5 teacher took

a magazine that I had made (with my own stories and ads etc), home with her for

her personal collection of her teaching experience.

* I am very disciplined. If I put my mind to something (but usually in the realm of

dieting) come hell or high water ... I stick to my decision. And like now ... now that

I actually believe I am capable of completing my honors, I am so disciplined in

working towards that goal. First I had to believe that I am intelligent enough to.

* Remember I told you my dad's a priest - well, I must have been about 6 or 7 when

he had this very old lady in his section (group of people given for his care) Sister

S.H. - I still remember - who was really ill. I remember running over to her house

after school one afternoon, and giving her a bunch of wild flowers. The fact that

it came from her front garden did not diminish her pleasure.

* I did voluntary counseling - working with school children (issues of truancy,

selfesteem, drug abuse etc).

* Thinking back - when I'm single - I'm quite a strong person, and brave (given the

limits of my childhood I've allowed to constrain me). Leaving for London at 19

was HUGE! against demands of my father that it's too dangerous and that I've

got to give up the idea - I refused and adamantly insisted on going. He refused

to give me a sent towards it and I worked (waitressed at Spur/temped at Woolies)

in order to get the money. Then went traveling around Europe and England all

on my own. and when W. and I broke up - I had to move back in with my parents

- and even though I was really 'on the edge' then, I still moved out on my own ...

again going against my dad's opinion that I'd not be able to pay my way. I did

well too. When I moved to JHB, I had no job here, no home and no-one either.

Apart from a good guy friend who gave up his bed for me and moved onto the

sleeper couch. S. (remember her - my best friend at the time) said that I was


mad and that some other girl would snatch Dave away (I said whoever she is,

she's welcome to him) --- but coming here was just something I had to do for me.

The weekend I arrived was the weekend that this good guy friend went to NY for

2 weeks, and I was left to navigate the Johannesburg traffic with only a road map

and a VERY bad sense of direction. looking back - I'm proud of me for making

that move then.

* I'm a good mommy.

So there was a garden in the window after all, with plenty of flowers too. But before

we could explore the full variety of flowers/plants growing there, however, Dave

moved out of the house, sleeping in a separate establishment while using the

house during working hours to conduct his business from. Caitlin already resigned

her job in order to be a full-time mother, and now only had access to email through

Dave‟s computer. Though the computer was available to her, she was making use

of Dave‟s e-mail address and neither of us wanted to “conduct therapy” when our

letters would be open to his scrutiny. And even though they might be married,

therapist-client ethics prevents me from exposing our conversations, or any

information regarding the conversations, to anybody unless consented by the

client. (Siegel 1979:253) Nor do I subscribe to the discourse that a wife is the

property of the husband (as discussed earlier) and that therefore all her actions

and doings should be open to his perusal. I had but no option to wait until Caitlin

next made contact and was willing or able to continue our conversations.

A window around God

The influence of God in Caitlin‟s life came up several times during our

conversations. Earlier on we already touched on the strict God she grew up, and

also the [possible] correlation between the way she saw him as the authority figure

who had to provide and who had to be obeyed, and her relationship with Dave.


My understanding of God is based in my own postmodern theology, which allows

me to co-create my life story alongside with God (Herholdt 1989: 226) but also

urges me not to impose my own religion or beliefs onto other people; not to

moralize, nor to be enticed by the entrapment of knowing what God is like for other

people. (Griffith 1995:238) This would be religiously oppressive and an unethical

way of being with people. Griffith (1995:126-127) also remarks that “…if I think I

know” … [how the person experiences God]…I am probably beginning to close off

therapeutic possibilities. I then risk joining forces of cultural oppression

…”

I believe that accepting different ways of being with God creates room for new

stories about God. And it is the therapist‟s professional task to create the possibility

of co-creating a space for religious talk. I asked Caitlin in a later letter whether her

conversations with God have changed in any way since we started the therapeutic

conversations.

August 22nd:

“Oh, you‟re so right on this front! My God [now] is loving, kind, forgiving…not

punishing, demanding and harsh! He wants me to grow and be all that I can be,

he wants me to have happiness, love, health as well as natural gifts like a lovely

home, a good job. The two kinds of gifts (spiritual and natural) are not opposites.

Not…if I have the one…I cannot have the other. He does not want me to choose

between the two kinds of „needs/desires.‟ He wants me to have both as long as I

know He is the most important and then my family, my love for all creatures…and

the rest will follow…..I feel that he is happy now that that I‟ve come this far and

allows me to sit on his lap and strokes my hair and says it‟s all right …, everything

is going to be alright my darling.”


The wonderful surprise was that God was accepting Caitlin unconditionally as

somebody worthy to love, and that he wanted her to have a happy and full-filled

life. He was a loving God, an approachable God, and not an authoritative figure of

wrath and fury. With this new knowledge Caitlin could now reconnect to her

spirituality in new ways that support her skills and hopes for the future.

Narrative ethics stresses the importance to handle with sensitivity and become

aware of how gender and race, within the discourse of society and religion,

everyday living, and therapy, shape people‟s lives. Discourses that disempower

people are abusive. It is the task of the therapist to deconstruct these in order to

empower the client within his/her culture. Sensitivity for culture/religion does not

mean that abusive practices are approved or accepted. I do not view

fundamentalist following of the Scriptures as in Caitlin‟s case, as wrong per se, but

in cases where this contributes to thin descriptions of a person, I believe

deconstruction is necessary. Therapists need to be sensitive enough to help the

client to distinguish between the dominant oppressive stories and to allow him/her

in rewriting the alternative stories of their spirituality, which allows a person more

freedom and choice while using the richness and safety of his/her ethno -

cultural/religious history. (Kotze 1994:118)

Connectedness in the window

According to Sevenhuijsen (1988:61) participatory ethics is open to the other and

is concerned with transcending a subject-object distinction. (Kotze 2002:18)

Participatory consciousness takes place when the boundaries between the self

and other are overcome through a deep connection. It reflects a way of being in

the world which is characterized by “allocentric” knowing, an attitude of profound

openness and receptivity towards the other, a temporarily “let go” of all

preoccupations with the self and a move into a state of complete attention.

(Heshusius 1994:16-17) The self-other comes into being where knowledge is

formed not through separation but by ways of attention, care and love.


In a caring and unconditional acceptance relationship, Caitlin shared her story with

me. Our kinship lied in our shared awareness of two women who are willing to

support each other in our attempts to nurse our gardens, and not to let uninvited

elements destroy the tender saplings growing there. Our kinship lies in awareness

of similarities rather than difference. “A readiness to see similarities…augments

the building of relationship…a readiness to see differences … augments a

diagnostic scrutiny that classifies the other as an object.” (Griffith & Griffith 1992:9)

During times when no “therapy” was/is conducted, Caitlin and I still communicate,

supporting each other, sharing stories of daily living and survival.

A window on sameness and difference

We are constituted in culture, in history, in language, in traditions – we cannot but!

exist inside culture, history or traditions. The therapist does not come to the

practice value-free but carries with him/her a specific world view which includes

his/her interpretations of the bible, personal beliefs and values, and in South Africa

especially, his/her specific history of apartheid. In line with a practice of ethics, we

have but no choice to acknowledge our biases and frame of reference, and accept

responsibility for the consequences of our actions.

Similar to the above, different clients will also come to seek assistance with

problems created from and in their different cultures and world views. Each culture

socializes its members with different values and norms. And each culture has

subcultures which do not necessarily conform to the values or norms held by the

supra-culture. Each individual within that culture might have different ideas as well,

which not always conforms to his culture‟s guide lines. In therapeutic practice

many differences thus exist between therapists and clients with the regard to the

ways in which realities that they live by, are constructed. (Kotze 1994:105)


A crucial task then is to look for paradoxes so as to discover antinomies in

relationship. We have to realize that we are being pulled in two ways at once and

that we often need to pay attention to two different and apparently opposed poles

of thought. (Rappaport 1981:3) A focus on sameness and difference shows us the

dialectic involved. Actions that operate from this type of dynamic tension, giving

attention to one truth in such a way that attention then immediately be given to its

counterpart are considered as dialectic. Each pole of thought – sameness and

difference- therefore should be considered as complimentary rather than

alternative, and supportive rather that opposite. In my experience, the danger in

an accentuating sameness above difference may lead to assumptions regarding

meaning construction, while accentuating difference might lead to discriminatory

practices. Kotze (1994:110-111) then advises cultural sensitivity to enhance a

meaning-specific approach to become aware of specific meanings which the client

has constructed around cultural practices, in order to conduct therapy in a

professional, sensitive way.

As it is, e-therapy contains an element of anonymity by concealing faces from each

other. I am embarrassed to confess it took me two months to discover that Caitlin

and I do not belong to the same ethnical group. I simply presumed us to come from

the same culture, and in so-doing neglected to consider at an earlier stage already,

some specific ethnic-cultural discourses that might have played a role in Caitlin‟s

life as well.

While doing e-therapy do offer us the rare opportunity to focus on sameness and

thereby I believe, assist in building relationship and deconstructing possible

prejudice from either side, it can simultaneously conceal an important “difference”

to consider in people‟s lives.


September 14th:

“… I am only now starting to come to terms with the little brown girl …her dreams

…fears...”

Extending the conversation in the window

Writing letters to clients after therapeutic sessions “…assist people to stay

connected to the emerging alternative story that is co-authored in the narrative

meetings.” (Morgan 2000:104) People find the written word sustaining as it reminds

them of the conversations shared. It provides something tangible to hold onto

outside the therapeutic settings, enabling them to refer back to these letters in

moments of need.

In Epston ([2001]:112) Epston (1994:31) describes the rationale for therapeutic

letters as “Conversation is, by its very nature, ephemeral…. the words in a letter

don‟t fade and disappear the way conversation does; they endure through time

and space, bearing witness to the work of therapy and immortalizing it.”

But how now, if the conversations were conducted by ways of letters in the first

place?

After every third to fourth e-mail conversation, I would summarize the previous

conversations and send them to Caitlin. These summaries would integrate (bring

together) the previous conversations, or one could say they constituted a narrative

of the previous letters which also included reflections from my side. In a way, they

also served as a revisit to the previous conversations. Normally these summaries

would contribute to introducing further questions, or invite Caitlin to share

subsequent thoughts on these previous conversations with me.


In so doing Caitlin also had access to my experience of the conversations and she

could challenge my subjective interpretations and/or assumptions. I felt that this

contributed to the deconstruction of my power position as the “expert therapist.”

My own face in the window

As this story draws to a close, I am aware of several things. I have been very

privileged to share Caitlin‟s journey with her. Few people have the privilege to look

through or in another‟s window, and to witness the secret garden there coming into

bloom. Our journey is not over yet and we do not know yet which flowers are all

growing there, nor have we seen them in full bloom yet. There is still space to plant

some more, specially selected plants as well. Since we are still writing this story,

they might form part of subsequent chapters. “Stories may have endings, but

stories are never over. “ (Freedman & Combs 1996:33)

An individual is not a relatively fixed end-product, but constituted and reconstituted,

living, and participating in various discursive practices. A person is positioned

through these practices – resulting in the generation of his/her

“subjectivity” (Davies & Harre 1990:43-46). As a colored, working class, religious,

English speaking woman, one who also married into the white culture, and at

present is „temporarily separated‟ from her husband, Caitlin still finds herself

positioned within specific contextual discourses that sustain her problem saturated

story. “There are also subjugating stories of gender, race, class, age… that are so

prevalent and entrenched in our culture that we can get caught up in them without

realizing it. “ (Freedman & Combs 1996:59)

There are a lot of possibilities, a lot of discourses, we have not explored in our

conversations yet. Nor have we traveled all the roads that have been „mapped out‟

for the narrative therapeutic process. Narrative maps though, are guides only

during the therapeutic conversations and do not depict a linear picture that has to

be followed rigidly. The specific roads traveled, would also depend on the particular


client. “All the paths may be taken, some of the paths, or one can travel along one

path for a time before changing to another. There is no „right‟ way to go – merely

many possible directions to choose from.” (Morgan 2000:3)

Michael White (1991:21) also describes the therapy process as a disorderly

process in general – “the ups and downs of that adventure that we refer to as

therapy.” During this journey we have experienced many „downs‟, realizing that

the problem has many different faces, faces that threatened to shatter the window

…..‟Ups‟ were also present; in uncovering that there was a secret garden in the

window, after all.

I conclude again, that stories are the windows to people‟s lives. And if we didn‟t

love stories, we wouldn‟t be good at this line of work. However, in most

professional contexts we must check our stories at the door, or at least, engage

with them privately. Weingarten (1997: xi) claims that the dichotomy between the

personal and the professional is one that has never made sense to her. I agree

that it seems impossible to create a rigid boundary between work and personal life.

The cultural discourse that therapists are able to stay objective towards clients‟

stories and suffering in my experience is one that either requires serious

deconstructing, or I have to confess and admit to myself that I will never make it

as a „good‟ therapist.

I therefore have to acknowledge the contributions Caitlin has made to the history

of whom I am and who I am becoming. By honoring the history of our connection,

I can so doing also honor my own story. I confess that I am tender towards telling

Caitlin‟s story, because it is shaping my life. Caitlin was/is my first „narrative client‟,

it was the first time in my life I ever conducted therapeutic conversations with a

client and in particular, it was the first time I engaged in therapeutic conversations

using e-mail. The journey was also painful for me. It confronted me with several


issues remarkably similar in my own life. And I am grateful for many of the ways it

has influenced me.

I want to thank Caitlin for inviting me to share the view through her secret window.

To co-search for her secret garden. Hopefully we will still find, and plant, many

flowers there together. And hopefully our interactions and conversations will

contribute to Caitlin‟s preferred life-story.


References

Becvar, D S & Becvar, R J 1996. Family therapy: a systemic integration. 3d ed.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Chamberlain, S & friends 1997. Learning to walk the walk. In White, C & Hales, J.

(eds.) The personal is the professional. Therapists reflect on their families, lives

and work. (1997) Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.

Davies, B & Harre, R 1990. Positioning: the discursive production of selves.

Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 20(1):43-63.

Epston D [2001] Playful Approaches to Serious Problems. Adelaide: Dulwich

Centre Publications.

Freedman, J & Combs, G 1996. Narrative Therapy. The social construction

preferred realitities. New York: Norton.

Griffith, M 1995. Opening therapy conversations with a personal God. In

Weingarten, K (ed.) Cultural resistance: challenging beliefs about men, women

and therapy. New York: Harrington Park Press.

Griffith, J & Griffith, M 1992. Owing one‟s epistemological stance in therapy.

Dulwich Centre Newsletter 1992 (1):5-11.


Herholdt, M D 1998. Postmodern Theology. In Maimela, S & Konig, A. Initiation

into Theology. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Heshusius, L 1994. Freeing ourselves from objectivity: managing subjectivity or

turning toward a participatory mode of consciousness? Educational Researcher

23(3):15-22.

Jenkins, A 1990. Invitations to Responsibility. The therapeutic engagement of

men who are violent and abusive. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.

King, S 1990. Four past Midnight: Paperback. Great Brittan: Hodder and

Stoughton Ltd.

Kotze, E 1994. The Social Construction of a Family Therapy Training Program.

D Litt et Phil thesis, Rand Afrikaans University.

Kotze, D 2002. Doing participatory ethics. In Kotze, D, Myburg, J, Roux, J &

Associates. (eds.) 2002. Ethical ways of being. Pretoria: Ethics Alive.

Morgan, A 2000. What is narrative therapy? An easy-to-read-introduction.

Adelaine: Dulwitch Centre Publications.

Paterson, M [s a]. Michel Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Sexuality. Retrieved

from the World Wide Web 05/08/2002. Available at


Rappaport, J 1981. In Praise of Paradox: A Social Policy of Empowerment over

Prevention. In Terre Blanche, M J, Butchart, A & Seedat, M. 1996. New

Perspectives in Community Psychology. Reader for PSY477-Y. Pretoria:

University of South Africa.




Rathbone, A 2000. Windows’95 for Dummies. 2nd ed. Chicago: IDG Books

Worldwide, Inc.

Siegel, M 1979. Privacy, ethics, and confidentiality. Professional Psychology, 10,

249-258.

Siegel B & Siegel, S 1988. The Storyteller. In Weis, M & Hickman, T (eds.)

Dragon Lance tales: Kender, Gully Dwarves and Gnomes. London: Penguin

Books.

Sue, D, Sue, D & Sue, S 1994. Understanding Abnormal Behavior. 4th ed.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Weingarten, K 1997. Foreword. In White, C & Hales, J. (eds.) The personal is the

professional. Therapists reflect on their families, lives and work. Adelaine:

Dulwich Centre Publications.

Weedon, C 1987. Feminist practice and Poststructuralist theory. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.

White, M 1991. Deconstruction and therapy. Dulwich Centre Newsletter (3):21-

40.

White, M 1995. Re-authoring lives: interviews and essays. Adelaide: Dulwich

Centre Publications.

http:www.Pastoral therapy\Internet Therapy Is it effective.htm. ABC’s of Internet

Therapy. Retrieved from the World Wide Web 07/09/2002.

secret window, secret garden · secret window, secret garden ilze neethling and *caitlin some...

Documents