"The boundary is not a barrier."
The above quote is by Steve de Shazer in his book, Words were originally magic (1994, p.66).
The distinction of problem-talk and solution-talk is one of the first concepts I learned in an SF class over a decade ago. And I went through a professional adolescence of avoiding problem-talk and forcing solution-talk, just to realize that those conversations didn't follow the textbook examples. Someone told me that "we don't talk about the f-word (feelings) in our practice." Another told me that "this works in mysterious ways."
I'm sure all of us had our own share of miseducation that sent us in various detours and longcuts. What were some of yours as you were learning to do your craft?
As I am re-reading de Shazer's not-so-light text, Words were originally magic (1994), I am mildly miffed that I didn't notice some parts of his writing earlier. Maybe I was not ready to notice it ten years ago, or who knows, he put it in there while I was asleep like some sort of a miracle.
In his attempt to contrast different practices, Steve de Shazer suggests:
I will set up the concepts "problem-talk" and "solution-talk" as a binary opposition, which will allow us to follow Wittgenstein in setting up another expedient binary opposition between "facts" and their opposite, "non-facts" (p.66).
And he adds a subtle footnote to the first part:
["Problem-talk" and "solution-talk" as a binary opposition] is only a temporary expedient, since the "inside/outside" of binary pairs cannot be guaranteed; the boundary is not a barrier (p.66).
My eyes were fixed to that last sentence. The boundary is not a barrier.
What emerges for you as you read this in your own context?
For me, it was the quadrant - the Dialogic Orientation Quadrant (DOQ) that I've worked with for years. Steve de Shazer's less-than-a-paragraph has gripped my attention for a week now, making me wonder how I can see the DOQ differently so that I don't contribute to a risky business of miseducation.
Dialogic Orientation Quadrant (DOQ) by Moon (2017)
So far in my observations,
People's narratives (and all its parts) do not fit neatly in any of the quadrants, really. It's just a rough and temporary approximation.
This is a functional representation. What they do. What you do in response. And what that does to their response. And repeat.
The boundaries between the quadrants are permeable. For example, the DOQ1 (preferred future) is a filtered version of DOQ2 (resourceful past), and often opposite of DOQ3 (troubled/regretful past) and DOQ4.
All quadrants offer us useful glimpses into what clients might want-want more or want different-so that we can expand on that "want".
This is not a snapshot or a map. It will be more useful to take it as a moving compass or a GPS over time.
All quadrants (including the Point Zero) are held in relation and relevance to one another. This is just a hunch and it's now sounding pseudo-academic and boring, I should've really stopped after the last bullet.
It would be a gross miseducation if I used this to feed/teach people questions. What are some good Q1 questions? Well, we don't know until we hear the answer if that question was good (if it worked) or not. It positions us back to take a learning stance, not teaching stance.
It would also be equally troublesome if this heuristic was used to teach people to avoid the lower quadrants (Q3 and Q4) and run to the upper (Q1 and Q2). Yes, I've heard some people joke, "Stay above the line" or "Don't sink to the bottom." While I genuinely laugh with them, I also wonder if we're going back to our professional adolescent years.
So when I read a sentence like "the boundary is not a barrier", old things merge and new things emerge. No wonder even our past is malleable and we create memories of our preferred futures.
(I welcome your reactions, interpretations, and other emerging insights and questions relating to Steve's passage!)