Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

Joshua Gonsher

Bill OHanlon, MS, and Solution-Oriented Family Therapy

Key Points

Watching the interaction between Bill OHanlon, MS, and the video facilitators and the

family, I no longer wish to raise him on the high pedestal I had previously. He was one of the

therapists I found in my research who discovered how to conduct therapy in the brief tradition;

who was a devout follower of Milton H. Erickson, MD; and to whom I looked up as a pioneer

and expert in the approach that focused mainly on the present and future. Before getting to

know him through these interviews, I had thought he could do no wrong; after intimately

understanding the why and how of his no-theory therapy, however, I am no longer enamored

of him. I still appreciate the product but do not enjoy the delivery method.

The key items of Solution-Oriented Family Therapy really piqued my interest. Therapists

and practitioners of this approach do not focus on the why of what is going on for the clients or

try to find an explanation for their behaviors. They simply want to find solutions and help people

feel better. This orientation was formed when OHanlon was depressed and suicidal in the past

and wanted to feel better himself. He discovered psychotherapy, what he called the art of how

to help people change, but realized that it focused on how people got messed up. Since that

was not decreasing his pain, he decided to pursue what made people happy. As such, this therapy

is focused on the present and future instead of on the past.

Another item that excited me was that there was no need for an orientation or theory. I do

use these terms interchangeably, but I should specify that OHanlon has called it the no-theory

therapy, as I referenced above. Therefore, this has no specific techniques or strategies. He said

it was stylistic and depended on the personality of the therapist. However, he did label two parts:

acknowledgment and possibility or change or solution. Therapists of this kind are not concerned
very much with feelings and emotions, but for the acknowledgement part, if therapists do not

convey that they understand their clients feelings, suffering, points of view, and/or concerns,

people may not come along for the next part.

The first part of the change section involves changing the viewing. OHanlon will help

the clients look at what is not working and will attempt to teach them how to look at life

differently. OHanlon said Erickson would have his clients who were in pain look at something

in their bodies that was not in pain, which would often cause the individuals to lose that original

pain. This he calls attentional change. The second part of this section involves changing the

doing, which is helping them change how they behave and interact in and out of session. This

would include homework and in-session interventions. Finally, the third part of the change

section is changing the context, wherein therapists attend to the culture, sexuality, gender

identity, class, and/or ethnicity, among other items of client background, and see the possibility.

They seek to know what has worked, what is working, and what could work? These exceptions

to the rules (e.g., He changes She never helps around the home into She sometimes helps.)

become possibilities. Language is used to create possibility.

This therapy does not view resistant clients as stuck; instead, it considers them well-

intentioned people who are stuck in some particular way but want to change if they can find a

way. As mentioned earlier, this is in line with the belief in the power and potential of language

in that these clients have not yet found a way to change consistently. Another component of

this therapy that is integral is that it does not believe that insight (knowing why you do the

things that you do and being confronted with that) is necessary. OHanlon stated that he has

changed a lot of things without having a clue why [he] did them, ultimately where they came

from.
What Was Helpful

I have emphasized the importance of figuring out client backgrounds and pasts since

entering my doctorate program, and now, being put on the remediation plan, it has become an

even more salient part, given that one of my action items is to gather client history more

accurately and completely. Additionally, with my past as an English major and English teacher, I

have found that understanding what has transpired in individuals lives (or the lives of literary

characters) is a key to why they act the way they do. However, I have been trying to reconcile

this with my philosophical beliefs, which state that there is no cause and effect, only influence.

Though I no longer believe in fatalism or that ones past determines ones present and future, if I

want to know why my clients are acting the way they are, looking at their pasts just may help

with that. Additionally, knowing where a client comes from creates more empathy in me.

However, this focus seems to work regardless of orientation/theory/approach since it does not

concern itself with the why, as stated earlier in the Key Points section.

I employ humor a lot and find it can soften people, coax them out of their shells, and

provide relief from an otherwise heavy situation. Seeing that OHanlon uses humor and says

butt out to the dad, I feel justified in my use. However, I would be wary of using that kind of

language even though it is not technically bad. One must know ones audience.

A component of being a therapist that I truly appreciate even in this age of collaboration

between clinician and client is that someone in psychic distress will seek out therapists since they

have a level of expertise that the client does not. It could be that merely knowing one is on ones

way to an experts office is enough to lower distress. I do not know if it is indicative of this

approach, but when the mother said that her knowing they were going to have an appointment

with the therapist may have improved family relations a little, the therapist said that they had an
imaginary appointment with him every week and that they should be on their best behavior.

OHanlon compared this to flossing before going to the dentist, but it did reinforce my belief in

valuing experience.

One thing I find helpful in therapy is not labeling a client as having a disease. If we

name it, we make the mistake of believing that the thing so named exists. In this interaction,

OHanlon called dysfunctional behavior habits since language is a virus. Solution-Oriented

Therapy understands how language can affect everyone in the session or conversation and is

careful not to abuse this power. I like how he used the language of his clients even though he

said he did not really want to do that; it was the virus of language that infected him. A further

example of how powerful language is in when the facilitator asked why OHanlon did not switch

the seating arrangement around since the daughter was clammed in the middle (referencing the

clam up phrase some family members said), he said he would rather focus on the oyster and

that the daughter was now a pearl, creating a wonderful reframe and empowering instead of

disenfranchising.

What Does Not Make Sense

While several elements of this therapy were wonderful, there were quite a few that did

not ring true or authentic with me. What if the clients want to speak more about their emotions?

How does an approach that does not concentrate on emotions and feelings allow for that?

Additionally, since the why is not important, how does a therapist manage if clients want a

reason for their behaviors? Furthermore, though OHanlon claims he is not very directive, he

seems rather invested in the familys accepting his suggestions as to what would be the best

thing to change. It is almost as though they do not come up with anything, and he is doing all the

work. What about letting the clients discover things to change or improve on their own? And
finally, he says language is used to create possibility, but he also says language is a virus and

infects the session or conversation. I would like to understand this apparent paradox more

clearly.

How I Would Do It Differently

As a trainee, it is not necessarily my place to tell a seasoned clinician how to improve or

what to change, but there are significant elements that I would include or remove since they are

blatant violations of what are considered best practices. OHanlon clearly states that he wants to

help his clients find what is effective and respectful and stand against the approaches which

are disrespectful or ineffective. When the facilitators discuss what else could be helpful, he

discounts them. I think this is a rather large judgment call. Additionally, I would not have been

on the defensive as much as OHanlon is. He is acting like a rebellious teenager instead of like

an adult, and he constantly needs to prove himself by saying that the research on this approach is

not really that great or that this kind of brief therapy does attend to feelings and is not shallow.

Another component I would change is in the treatment of feelings. OHanlon does not

think, Lets get into those things [emotions] but acknowledges that if the clinician does not, the

clients will not feel understood and will not progress into the change component. Before my

current status, I also would not have focused too much on feelings; however, I would get into

those things as I understand how important building trust and establishing rapport is, and

attending to someones emotions is a wonderful way to do that.

I understand the importance of disclosure. It can normalize feelings and lessen anxiety. It

can establish rapport and bring illustrations. However, there is a time and a place. OHanlon

certainly disclosed a lot, but he could have used more neutral examples instead of revealing too

much intimate detail.


I have recently become acutely aware of my multiple identities and their

intersectionalities. OHanlon speaks of how his identities might also influence or bias clients, but

it appears he leads his clients to where he wants them to go, which is not something I would do.

Though he speaks about not letting his biases get in the way, it seems that he is unaware of who

he actually is.

According to Carl Rogers, a good therapist should do more listening than talking, but

OHanlon talks a lot. I do not think I heard any times when the family was just sitting in silence.

While that technique is not my favorite, I have begun to see the benefit in Dont just do

something! Sit there.

OHanlon kept telling them that he had to wrap up, but he was not very firm in his

boundary setting. He must have finished the session four times. I have learned how therapeutic

saying no can be. Replicating a ruptured relationship and then repairing it has far-reaching,

positive effects; letting clients have their way can be detrimental to the alliance, relationship, and

growth.

Finally, clinicians should be solid with their issues. Ideally, a therapist should be free

of emotional or historical baggage and completely available for the client. OHanlon seemed to

need approval and appeared confused about his own self-worth. He also seemed to be fishing for

compliments or at least approval since he asked how it was for the clients and did not seem

satisfied when they only answered okay.

Other Questions/Reactions

Finally, if I were touting the effectiveness or power of a new theory, I would have been

entirely prepared. I might have a script or at least have memorized key tenets of my approach.

Not so with OHanlon, who looked to be grasping at straws when describing his approach. He
first said there were 2 parts but while explaining them came up with a 3rd. He did go back and

clarify, but it was confusing at the outset. Additionally, when asked about research on this

philosophy, he said there was only a little and what was there was not very great. He clarified

that and explained that certain elements (i.e., attending to people and being empathic and

warm) have been researched. He said that he thinks, time will tell whether the research

supports it. If it there is research, objectively review it. If there is no research, own that and

conduct it; do not explain that it is unnecessary. The rest of my questions or reactions have been

laid out in the above paragraphs.

Potrebbero piacerti anche