Paul Watzlawick (1967) proposed a pragmatic theory of communication, which is still fundamental for systemic thinking. He puts forth the idea that communication can be reduced to seven basic premises. 1. It is impossible not to communicate. Even withdrawal or saying
nothing will be noticed and interpreted by others as being shy or rude.
2. Whenever communication has two angles—one that is rational and the other emotional—the emotional communication is more powerful in shaping the relationship.
3. The kind of relationship between two persons is determined by the way they interpret sequences of communication.
4. Human communication uses digital, verbal, and analogue chan- nels such as gestures, facial expressions, and signals. Usually, the nonverbal ways of communication are more important but less clear. People use other information, such as background information or the context of the communication, to get a clear idea about what is meant.
5. Repetitive ways of interaction can be called a rule or a pattern. Patterns are usually fixed by cycles of communication. Repeti- tive patterns build a structure, which usually is not conscious, but we can observe it. In systemic thinking the fundamental questions are “What are the rules?” “How does the system work?” and “What cycles of communication perpetuate the structure?”
6. A family or a couple does not see cycles of communication but usually thinks in very subjective patterns of cause and effect. For instance, a wife might grumble because her husband al- ways drinks, whereas the husband might be angry and believe that he drinks because his wife always grumbles.
7. Patterns of communication can be symmetrical, meaning that both partners try to do the same things in a competitive way, or complementary, which is based on partners doing asymmetri- cal or different things, such as one partner being strong, while the other is weak. Symmetrical systems tend to be escalating, whereas complementary systems tend be very stable but hard to change.
These suppositions still serve us well in the therapeutic field, as we seek to understand the nature of this objectifiable dimension. We watch the interactions in order to determine the intricacies of how power, organization, and beliefs are formed within the family. But understanding patterns is not enough. As contextual therapists, we do not conceive of ourselves as neutral. We have a global or strate- gic orientation to move a person, a couple, or a family away from a situation of despair, suffering, having symptoms, or dysfunctional behavior. We want to help them to change toward suffering less and getting along better in life and in their relationships by using the powerful resources of love and trust. True therapy, from a contex- tual perspective, will try to induce processes of restructuring.
In order to achieve this restructuring, we recognize the importance of establishing a good working alliance with the family. All therapy outcome research reveals the importance of a good connection between the psychotherapist and patients. Contextual therapists do not take an expert position but rather believe in the concept that all members of the family system have claims and interests that are justified. All family members have performed actions that are constructive, whereas other actions are destructive. The therapist joins in a working alliance with the family by recognizing each member’s claims, interests, and actions. Fair consideration of all family members not only joins the psychotherapist with the family but also sets a trustworthy framework for the possibilities of change. After the psychotherapist joins with the family, the first tactical steps are to create an atmosphere of working together for constructive change. Achieving this atmosphere sometimes requires only 10 minutes, whereas in other situations we will need much more time. The first questions that psychotherapists must ask themselves revolve around the reason that the person or the family is coming to therapy. Is the context that the patients want therapy for themselves? Do they feel that the other family members are the problem? Are they forced to see the therapist by court order? Have they felt rejected by other psychotherapists or physicians? Are they coming to therapy because another family member is threatening to leave? Does a man see me because his wife threatens to leave him if he won’t undergo therapy? All of these questions are important to analyze, at least to determine if the family members are open to the idea of change.
Most patients and families are burdened, often overwhelmed, by anxiety and feelings of guilt and shame. The next important task of the psychotherapist is to reduce these overwhelming burdens. This is partly done by relating, but more specific comments are usually necessary. Anxiety, depression, bad relationships, or a diagnosis of
psychological problems can shatter one’s self-concept and provoke deep shame. This can be utilized by the therapist as an opportunity to demonstrate the interactions of fair giving and receiving. For example, a psychotherapist may respond to patients in a variety of ways, in order to communicate this new respect and way of interacting.
• I assume that it is difficult to talk about personal problems to a
man you hardly know, but I think you are doing it to help your family.
• This is a therapy session and we will not put blame on anyone.
We will simply seek to take responsibility.
• Guilt always requires what lawyers call “animus auctoris,” or
the intent to cause harm. I do not know yet about you, but in my experience, most people do not intend to cause harm.
• I do not know about your family yet, but I have learned from my
work with incest survivors that there could be severe guilt feel- ings without any real reason. The victimized child is not guilty and we have to shatter this belief in order to be successful. In contextual therapy, we are always concerned with communicating to the individual or the family that we are interested in locating strengths and resources; promoting transformations that produce love, trust, and fair giving; and intervening to stop destructive actions.