On a Break -- Week 6 Social Constructionist Therapy

As we’ve discussed in class, social constructionism shows us how we can use language to define and redefine our experiences – that is we can use different discourses to make meaning of our experiences – and how this process of redefining can create flexibility and positive effects for people in general, AND clients in therapy.

A few lectures back, we discussed an example in lecture of how someone could define an “affair” in different ways, and how this definition might actually change their reality about it.

We want to revisit that idea here because the very notion of someone “redefining an affair” can be disconcerting to some people. For many, especially people in committed relationships who expect their partners not to have sex with other people, it doesn’t sit well that someone can just redefine what an affair is – that they might redefine it as something that isn’t bad or wrong, which would let them “off the hook” so they could be justified in not feeling guilty about it.

This example really highlights the social part of social constructionism. No one exists by themselves – we are always in relationships, and so we are surrounded by people who are making meaning just as we are. Sometimes the way people make sense of our experiences/behavior doesn’t have much of an effect on us or them – maybe you don’t really care what your dad thinks about the way you dress, so you feel pretty comfortable making sense of the way you dress the way you want. Other times, particularly when your experience/behavior really impacts a relationship you are in, the way other people make sense of it (the discourses they use) has MAJOR effects. It will impact whether they decide to continue the relationship, it will impact how they talk about what you did to other people – like friends, kids, etc. – and that will impact how those people see you, and therefore your relationships with them. So while you always have the option to define something in a particular way – to use certain discourses and not others – you aren’t the ONLY person who is making meaning of that situation, you aren’t the ONLY person constructing reality – it’s a social process with real life implications.

Although this clip is quite old (from 1997) – for anyone who has watched “Friends” reruns, it is pretty classic and really illustrates this exact issue.
The context is this: Ross and Rachel have a major argument, at the end of which Rachel suggests that they “take a break” in terms of their relationship. Ross is very upset, and ends up having sex with another woman. Ross and Rachel reconcile the next day, but then Rachel finds out that Ross had sex with this other woman. Rachel is hurt and angry and says that Ross “cheated” on her. Ross claims that he didn’t because they were “on a break.” Each of them define being “on a break” in a different way, and so what Ross did means something very different to each of them. And Rachel’s refusal to accept Ross’s definition/meaning of what happened has major effects for both of them.

You only have to watch the first minute of this clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEn9YvJ3Gfg&NR=1

So what would a social constructionist therapist do if this couple came to counseling?

Well, first, they would NOT see it as their job “to decide what is true” or who is right and who is wrong. Many couples come into therapy thinking that what they need is a referee, a neutral party, to decide who is right and wrong (each partner, of course, thinking the therapist should side with them). For a social constructionist, what is important is WHY it is important for Ross to define what he did in his way (to reaffirm his identity as a nice guy, for it to make sense given his love for Rachel, etc.) and why it is important for Rachel to define what he did in her way (to make sense of her hurt feelings, to make sure it never happens again, etc.). Who knows how the conversation in therapy will turn out??? And that’s exactly the point – the meaning is being socially constructed in the moment of doing therapy. No one person – not Ross, not Rachel, not the therapist (if they were in therapy) has control over the “final” meaning(s), only the meaning they choose to adopt for themselves. And no one person has control over the effects of those meanings. That’s the challenge of living in a socially constructed world – we have agency (the ability to make choices), BUT we don’t control all the meanings and effects of the choices we make. THIS is the value of social constructionist therapy, as it can acknowledge this complexity in order to help people come away with meanings/discourses that are more helpful/less harmful to them (and their relationships).