Integrating Existential and Narrative Therapy: A Theoretical Base for Eclectic Practice

12. Interpersonal Meaning-Making Processes in Ongoing Treatment

269 12 Interpersonal Meaning-Making Processes in Ongoing Treatment The connection between interpersonal process and the creation of meaning is straightforward. Kiesler (1996) argues that in nearly every interaction with another, a person is seeking confirmation of a preferred view of self. In existential/narrative terms, this means that people enact (rather than verbalize) particular stories in which they are the protagonist in interacting with others. If other individuals participate in those stories through their actions, the stories are thickened and the protagonists’ selves are affirmed. If others refuse to participate in the stories that are offered, the interaction ends, and neither participant is affirmed. If, however, another person participates in ways that are not entirely consistent with a protagonist’s proffered story, yet close enough that the interaction can be maintained, then all participants face differences that must be made sense of. These differences are the opportunities for the making of new meaning. Moreover, because the stories of each participant must overlap for the interaction to proceed, the new meanings are truly co-created in that both participants contribute to them in the attempt to make sense of these events for themselves. The meanings that are created are generally subsymbolic (Mahoney 1991). That is, rather than being explicitly verbalized, these meanings are immediately lived, presentational meanings in the existential sense. As such, they are part of the stream of ongoing lived experience and can be directly referred to and made explicit in therapy. Such symbolization can, in itself, create meaning and change the nature of 270 Integrating Existential and Narrative Therapy the lived experience. However, new lived-meaning can be generated through the interaction; regardless of whether the steps of reflection and symbolization occur, and it is understood in the existential/narrative framework to have a narrative structure. What is being proposed here is both similar to and different from the social constructionist understanding of meaning-making. The obvious similarity is that it is an interactive, social process through which meaning is created. It differs because meaning exists within each of the participants in the interaction, rather than exclusively between them. That is, each person actively construes the interaction, though the ways in which each participates in the interaction clearly contribute to the meanings that each can construct. The existential/ narrative view also differs in that it does not draw upon the performative conception of language (Russell and Wandrei 1996) that is important in many social constructionist views of meaning-making. Rather, it draws upon Labov and Fanshel’s (1977) discussion of the speech act as meaning emerging from actions taken rather than solely from words spoken. BIDDING FOR ROLES/CONSTRUCTING SELVES In their discussion of speech acts, Labov and Fanshel (1977) describe speaking as an action that enacts a story and point out that the enacted story may be quite distinct from the meanings of the words spoken. Thus, in therapy as in life in general, multiple stories are frequently being told simultaneously that may be congruent to greater or lesser degrees. No one of these stories is inherently more important or real than any other. Each is context for all the others, and each must be understood in the context of all the others. To accomplish this, therapists must be able to hear those stories that are being told in action apart from the story told in the words being said. Doing so requires understanding and awareness of interpersonal process as it unfolds moment to moment in the consulting room. Clients often talk about their experiences with other people, and the nature of the interpersonal process reported to have gone on between the people in these stories can be examined in therapy. However, the telling of these problem-saturated stories may or may not create the same kind of interpersonal process between the client and the therapist that is described in the verbalized story. Interpersonal Meaning-Making Processes 271 For example, a client may tell the therapist a verbal story of feeling needy, desperately seeking support and guidance from his friends and colleagues, and feeling confused and helpless because they do not offer what he is looking for. The way he presents the story, however, conveys to the therapist the message: “I dare you to help me! No one else has and neither will you!” The distinction between the verbalized story and the enacted one must be kept clear, and it can be quite helpful...