Introducción

Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin and Prata (1981) wrote an article entitled

“Hypothesizing – Circularity – Neutrality,” in which they defined the term “hy-pothesizing” for use in systemic family therapy. This, in turn, had a major influ-ence in shaping the further development of systemic theory and practice. First, they commented on the derivation of the word from the Greek original: “‘what lies below’ or better yet: the plan on which a theoretical construction is based.”

According to the Oxford Dictionary, hypothesis means “a supposition or pro-posed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.” This definition describes the use of the word in the exper-imental sciences. In systemic theory, the term hypothesis is useful because it refers to a preliminary and experimental, process-oriented procedure: We observe, we generate hypotheses and we then intervene on the basis of such hypotheses, learn from the reactions and then expand, supplement, discard or correct our original hypotheses.

Thus, hypotheses have two primary functions (see von Schlippe & Schweizer, 2007, p. 117):

– They organize the many observations and datasets we have accumulated while working with the clients. They condense individual pieces of information to a single image and differentiate between important and unimportant information.

Many authors carry out this process only in writing, which misses the target:

Visualizations, like the ones we looked at in the previous chapter (family-helper maps or timelines), actually represent hypotheses or at least help to trigger the process of forming hypotheses. In addition, one can use metaphors, images and symbols while preparing hypotheses – our brains are capable of more than just summarizing written notes into if-then clauses.

– They stimulate us to perceive new and alternative perspectives; they are like signposts pointing toward new information and are particularly useful when

situations in families or systems have become gridlocked and we need a fresh and unconventional approach.

Material for hypotheses may be derived from two sources:

– From our own knowledge, which we have excised from our own research and experience about specific systems (e.g., co-alcoholic dynamics in addiction sys-tems, acting out by children in structurally weak families);

– From our observations of the respective family, person or group – whether through direct contact, through (observed) contact with others or through their interaction with suggested or prescribed tasks and rituals.

Employing the first of these two sources in systemic work is a controversial mat-ter. Some solution-oriented therapists suggest always beginning at the point of ignorance and proceeding from there in order to study with fresh eyes the patterns of the system. The trick to forming hypotheses is not to impose one’s professional opinions and conclusions onto a client problem, but rather to always remember that every system is unique, and that we must determine the proper solution from scratch every time (see Background Text in Chapter 4.2.3).

Case example: A teacher of dyslexic children in a counseling center solved this dilemma by initially requesting only the name, age and school of the children in his care – resolutely refusing to study in advance any files describing the children or previous treatments. Only after a few weeks’ time, after having formed his own impression of the child, did he meet with colleagues and exchange information about the child’s background and previous ther-apy attempts. This method proved to have a positive effect on the child-therapist relation-ship and on the results of the therapy itself.

Background Text: Why Do Systems Theorists Prefer to Speak of Hypothe-ses and Not of DiagnoHypothe-ses?

The systemic-constructivistic tradition says that we cannot assume that we are making objective statements about humans or systems. Heinz von Foer-ster (2002, p. 154) put it like this: “Objectivity is the illusion that observa-tions can be made without an observer. Appealing to objectivity means re-fusing to accept responsibility – that’s why it is so popular!” (see Background Text in Chapter 2 on the notion of facts). Objective statements provide us with a sense of security that is a splendid basis for arguing with others about the “truth.” We, however, assume that every statement, such as one about another human being, stems from a human observer.

For example, the statement “John is lazy” or “Mary is psychotic” assumes the following:

– that we have observed certain behaviors in a social context,

– that these behaviors have attracted our attention by somehow deviating form our idea of normal behavior,

– that we can evaluate these behaviors according to our own criteria.

Figure 22: Juxtaposition of a procedure based on objective diagnoses and on systemic hypotheses. The arrows show the direction information flow.

All of this is canceled out in the seemingly objective statement, which has certain consequences as we will see below. First, let us compare (in a rather polarizing way) the treatment and counseling possibilities from the objecti-vizing and systemic perspective (see Figure 22).

According to traditional treatment methods for the problem areas we have been dealing with, the helper (physician, therapist, social worker) is the expert for the problem and for its solution. He or she prescribes or suggests something, and the client does it. The diagnosis represents the objective truth and thus requires great effort; the results have long-term validity. If, for example, schizo-phrenia is diagnosed, then everyone knows what the next years will bring. If the treatment fails to show success, this will be termed “opposition” by psychother-apeutic circles, ascribed, as such, to the client and his or her mental dynamics.

Or one reverts to the diagnosis of “resistance to therapy.”

The systemic counselor, on the other hand, looks at the situation from an experimental vantage point, learning by trial and error which of the interven-tions is helpful and productive, always refining and fine-tuning the hypothe-ses. Hypotheses are thus always something preliminary, with a short half-life:

short-term procedures in a long-term process. They are used for orientation, and they always remain open to correction. Thus, systemic work is always process-oriented, i.e., solutions arise in a collective effort between counselor

and client of seeking and learning. The client is always the expert on his or her own life; the counselor adjusts the treatment and care to the uniqueness of the client. Milton Erickson repeatedly emphasized that, in principle, one would have to invent a new school of therapy for every individual client (quoted after G. Schmidt, 1993, personal communication). The psychother-apy researcher Klaus Grawe made similar conclusions based on his metastud-ies on the efficacy of psychotherapy: “Why should the human soul be divided up like the many strains of psychotherapy? For this reason it would be better if a therapist were to look at a patient and say: ‘What is the best possible approach for this person? How can I best bring about changes in this person’s life?’” (Grawe, 2000, p. 305).

We can expand these statements to cover social and pedagogical themes as well. If something fails to function, stagnation ensues; we experience the client as rebellious. From a systemic point of view, this is important informa-tion and a stimulus we can use in shaping the further relainforma-tionship and inter-vention. We assume that we simply have not yet found the proper and ade-quate intervention, that we have proceeded too quickly or too slowly, that we have not yet determine the right subject matter and need to concern ourselves with gaining better access. Resistance (if there is such a thing) is an interac-tion variable – not a client variable.

Case example: A child therapist remarks in a contribution to a congress that her meth-od of group therapy has a success rate of 70%, with about 20% of the children show-ing no effect. Her explanation is that these children evidently have pronounced per-sonality disorders and should be seen as resistant to therapy. Following this view, failure originates within the children and is reinforced by objective data and diagnoses. Such a statement, however, blocks out major aspects of the context: The more reasonable statement would be: “20% of the children do not profit from the setting of my non-directive, bi-weekly, 2-hour therapy over a period of 6 months.” When asking “why”

something doesn’t work, we must always contemplate the entire context – including ourselves.

In summary, we may draw two conclusions:

– Hypotheses should not be judged on whether or not they are true, but whether they are useful in effecting change. Eckhard Sperling, a family therapist and psychoanalyst from Göttingen, Germany, said it very radical-ly: “I do not believe in a theory, I use a theory. And of that theory I use only that part that helps me further . . . and only for as long as it helps me”

(after Hosemann et al., 1998, p. 127).

– We should always be willing to part with our hypothesis if we notice that no changes are taking place. It is better to switch hypotheses than switch clients! Jochen Schweitzer once suggested adopting a postmodern attitude toward hypotheses: You can fall in love with a hypothesis, even enjoy a candle-light dinner with one, but there’s no need to marry one.

4.2.1 The Sources and Themes of Hypotheses

All information, insights and impressions flow together to generate a hypothesis;

how one best gathers and documents that information was shown in the previous Chapters 2 and 3.

It is a good idea to practice regarding a situation from all angles – trying on glasses with different-colored lenses, so to speak, and using them to reorganize one’s impressions. Some important questions are as follows:

– How does a particular symptom or problem make sense from this perspective?

– How does the attempt reflect the solution, the answer to a real challenge?

– Where can (must) we presume good intentions with negative results?

– Cloé Madanes (1989, personal communication) suggests regarding symptoms as metaphors for important themes in a system. This perspective asks what themes are symbolically expressed through problematic behavior.

Here a few examples taken from these perspectives (Figure 23):

– The socioeconomic context, the client’s environment: What problems are the clients confronted with that stem from their environment? Might their difficult behaviors be their way of dealing with such surroundings?

For example, are a mother’s absurd expenditures her futile attempt at rebelling against the constant lack of funds – the desire to, at least once in a while, have something to “offer” her children? What do the conflicts among the siblings have to do with their living arrangement?

– Adaptation demands: When death, sickness, war or relocation strikes – when clients have to deal with major life disruptions – how does their reactive behav-ior help them to cope?

For example, an adolescent’s withdrawal, his distrust of others, may be connect-ed with the constant relocations his parents exposconnect-ed him to and with his own ensuing lack of long-term relationships.

– Temporal processes: How do life events, a difficult past or failed attempts at

Figure 23: Ways of looking at hypotheses

finding a solution affect each other? What does this say about the present situ-ation? Compare the example of “Sonja” given in Chapter 3.4.2.

– Life cycle: For example, a child’s entry into school or leaving of the home:

Is the system presently stressed by such transitions? How does it react? What steps were successful – and which ones are avoided?

For example, because of on-going problems, an adolescent delays moving out and effectively holds the family together. He uses the parents to set limits and care for him, while at the same time demanding more independence.

– Biographical processes and multigenerational perspectives: What is the story behind the clients’ previous life and learning history? What behavioral patterns have emerged? What baggage full of unsolved problems do they carry around with them?

For example, the sadistic father stems from a long family tradition of violence:

His behavior expresses multigenerational themes of abuse, irresponsibility and intemperance.

– Interaction and behavioral patterns: Which behavioral patterns have sprouted up around the symptoms or problems? How are they being nourished by the interactions?

For example, two counselors in a group of adolescents contradict each other in their rules and everyday activities. What one of them allows, the other forbids, in part within earshot of the youths. Soon the kids don’t obey any rules at all; the pressure on everyone rises and the two counselors resort even more adamantly to their controversial methods.

– Structures such as boundaries, subsystems and control: How is the family struc-tured? How are the boundaries, the subsystems, the leadership defined?

For example, a small child discovers how to break all rules and still rely on support from the grandmother. Apparently, the boundaries between the genera-tions and authority of the parents must be clarified.

– Moods, impressions, emotional and somatic reactions: What do I, as a counsel-or, experience in my dealings with the clients?

For example, does the coolness that reigns within the group have anything to do with the child having run away? The sadness a counselor experiences in a family with high aspirations may be a signal of unresolved grief and suppressed needs for relaxation.

4.2.2 How to Construct Hypotheses

Forming systemic hypotheses means making assumptions about:

– the relationships within the client system,

– the interactions between symptoms and relationships, – the connections between the client and the helper system,

– the connections between the symptom and the history of the system,

– the connections between internalized patterns from earlier systems being repro-duced by the clients in the present system.

Systemic thought does not assume linear cause-and-effect associations, but rather presumes circular reciprocities – this aspect, too, must be reflected in our hypoth-eses.

Case example: In a school there are problems between teachers and students. The students say they are not motivated because they have such frustrated teachers who fail to get in-volved. The teachers say they are frustrated because their pupils are so unmotivated. The circular hypothesis would be: Pupils and teachers mutually frustrate and demotivate each other.

In Table 6 we present a comparison of objectifying and systemic strategies in a rather polarizing manner in order to accentuate the differences. Analogously we can differentiate the two basic construction principles for the generation of hy-potheses (after P. Gester, personal communication).

Case example: Markus, a 17-year-old, comes to counseling with his parents. He regularly wakes up at night, sees the devil in his room (literally, not as part of a dream) and comes running to his parents full of panic. The family has solved the problem by letting the son Table 6: Construction principles for hypotheses

Objectivizing, objectifying Systemic, fluidifying Intrapersonal

Hypotheses refer to traits that lie within the person

Interpersonal

Hypotheses are statements about the relation-ships and interactions of those involved and their context

Causes

Hypotheses provide explanations for the causes (under the assumption of linear cause-and-effect associations)

Functions

Hypotheses refer to the meaning and function of the symptoms or behaviors within the re-spective system

Past

Hypotheses illuminate the past

Present and future

Hypotheses refer to the present network in systems as well as to the future

Stable over time

Hypotheses are on the lookout for stable, unchanging traits and explanations

Variable

Hypotheses “dilute” traits into behavioral pat-terns that vary according to time and space Negative connotation

Hypotheses refer to deficits and the ab-sence of something

Positive connotation

Hypotheses presume positive intentions and functions, and always include resources Removed from context

Hypotheses about traits are not bound to the contexts (time, space, others) in which the person acts

Context-oriented

Hypotheses connect the actions with the exter-nal circumstances and assign a new meaning to them

Conventional

Hypotheses are stuck in traditional psy-chological or sociological thought pat-terns or conventions

Unconventional

Hypotheses differ from traditional thought patterns, and through the use of creative, un-usual and bold assumptions they carry an ele-ment of surprise, opening up new perspectives

sleep in the parents’ bedroom, the mother having moved to his room. She would like to solve the problem as quickly as possible, whereas the father pleads for patience: The devil apparently avoids the parental bedroom, the son sleeps well there, and it is important that the son get a good night’s sleep to get through his job training. During the initial interview, when working with exploration and creating a sculpture, we learn that the boy’s older brother moved out of the house 3 years ago amid massive conflicts – and that no one knows where he currently lives! While difficult for everyone, the situation seems to be especially hard to bear for the father. Up until now, the family has lived quietly and happily in modest surroundings. All family members report having experienced a nice family life with little contact to others. Of the many possible hypotheses, we choose the following: A new de-parture is impending, and viewed against the background of a self-sufficient family and the painful detachment of the elder son, this move is dangerous and anxiety-provoking for all.

The devil symbolizes this danger. The son is signaling to his father that he won’t be leaving all too soon, which binds the father and son together.

We told the family only the first part of the hypothesis – testing the second part by giving the family a task to fulfill: We described the problem as one of detachment and asked the father to go with the son once a week either on a walk or to a bar or pub and tell him about how he himself had left his parents’ home when he was young. This task aimed at getting the theme of detachment out into the open, while also strengthening the father-son rela-tionship. The mother gave her approval for this exclusive contact between the two. At the next meeting, the two men reported that their talks had been very good for them. In two further meetings we followed up on the theme of detachment, also touching on the sadness they felt at the elder son’s leaving.

We also emphasized the hypothesis that the son may be worried about the parents: What will they do all alone, with no friends, when he leaves? We spoke with the parents and with the son separately about ways of making contact and how to shape one’s life. After 5 sessions the son, without any therapeutic planning, moved back into his own room. The devil still popped up once in a while, but the son was able to take it. In about 6 weeks’ time he suggested the solution himself: One night the idea came to him to just ignore the devil’s presence and to do push-ups. Then, to his own surprise and delight, the devil was gone! A few training units later and the entire problem had been solved: The devil didn’t want to meet up with such a strong and well-trained boy, so he apparently quit coming and the son slept safe and sound once again.

We congratulated him on this very novel solution. In the following weeks we held further

We congratulated him on this very novel solution. In the following weeks we held further