PROCESS

Introduction to the Special SectionFContinuing

Narrative Ideas and Practices: Drawing Inspiration
from the Legacy of Michael White
VICTORIA C. DICKERSON, PH.D. n

Fam Proc 48:315318, 2009

n late March 2008, I learned that Michael White had collapsed after a day of
teaching in southern California. Shortly thereafter, I heard a colleague murmur
words to the effect that Michaels passing would mark the end of narrative therapy. I
was astounded. I had always believed narrative ideas were so much more than Michael, no doubt because he had said as much to me over 10 years ago. Michael continued to explore fresh metaphors to turn into understandings and practices that
would enrich narrative work, moving from Batesons (1972) restraints to Bruners
(1990) landscapes to Foucaults (1980) discourses to Vygotskys (1986) scaffolding to
Derridas (1978) absent but implicit. He was able to enact what David Epston calls a
remarkable but gracious ease . . . (of moving) between the large ideas of scholarship
and the intimate and particular ideas of practice (Epston, 2008, p. 3). These developments would continue to enhance a therapists ability to enter into the world of the
client and to collaborate in ways that could allow the client to make a shift toward
preferred identities.
It is also undeniable that Michael had a tremendous impact on those he met; after
his death, I talked with many who commented on how he had touched their lives. I am
reminded of one of the last opportunities I had to spend time with MichaelFit was at
an International Narrative Therapy Conference held in Oaxaca, Mexico, in July 2004.
There, in the process of attending the conference, I reunited with old friends and made
new ones. This is the hallmark of what I have come to relish as the narrative communityFthe coming together of persons from all over the world to meeting places
that may be of different geographies but whose members hold a similar geography of
ideas. This is why I believe Michaels legacy contains not only a way of thinking and
working that will continue to evolve but also a community of people that will grow as well.

n
Private practice, Los Gatos, CA. Adjunct lecturer, Department of Psychology, San Jose State University,
San Jose, CA

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Victoria C. Dickerson, Ph.D., 203
Santa Clara Ave., Aptos, CA 95003. E-mail: vcd@cruzio.com
315

Family Process, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2009 r FPI, Inc.

316

FAMILY PROCESS
1

This special section demonstrates how members of various narrative communities

continue to enliven and take forward Michaels ground-breaking ideas and practices.
Maggie Carey is the first author of the initial article in this section (Carey, Walther,
& Russell, 2009). Maggie was collaborating with Michael in establishing a new center
in Adelaide and was closely in touch with Michaels thinking in early 2008. She invited
Sarah Walther from the United Kingdom, and Shona Russell, with whom she has
previously collaborated (see Narrative TherapyFResponding to Your Questions,
Russell & Carey, 2004), to join her in authoring this article. They not only capture a
key concept, the absent but implicit, in Michaels more recent thinking, but also
appreciate how his penchant for continuing to learn characterizes a continual revisioning of the narrative approach. By exploring what is meant by absent but implicit, Maggie and her colleagues also explicate a clear map of the narrative process.
As we take narrative practice forward, this article is a fitting contribution to understanding how one might work. I imagine many teachers and learners will find it useful.
How might one work is a key phrase in John Winslades reading of Gilles Deleuze
(Deleuze 1994, 1995; Deleuze & Guattari, 1994; Deleuze & Parnet, 2002). John, a New
Zealander, now living and teaching in southern California, collaborated with David
Epston, Gerald Monk, and Kathie Crocket in editing Narrative Therapy in Practice:
An Archeology of Hope (Monk, Winslade, Crocket, & Epston, 1997). In the second
article (Winslade, 2009) John presents a theoretical piece with implications for therapy, exploring the work of Deleuze, which he had learned Michael was also pursuing.
As John comments, he was looking forward to a conversation with Michael about what
they were each finding interesting. However, John did not have the opportunity; he
was with Michael that last workshop day and the evening of his collapse (see Winslade
& Hedke, 2008). As John told me: Michaels reading of Deleuze might be different
from mine, might draw on different distinctions, go in different directions. We do not
know how Michael may have read Deleuze, so John follows his own thoughts and
provides us with a fresh metaphor for how to think about and work with clients. His
focus on How might one live, and extending that concept into How might one
work, offer us the understanding that one degree of difference in direction can
change the trajectory of the line of flight in peoples lives, can help them, in line
with Michaels thinking, become other than what they have been.
Jill Freedman2 and Gene Combs, two of the people who have contributed to the
spread of the narrative metaphor in North America (see Narrative Therapy: The Social Construction of Preferred Realities, Freedman & Combs, 1996), have been
working closely with Michael and with the narrative metaphor for over two decades.
They were also connected with Michaels involvement with communities, an important extension of his thinking and work with individuals and families. They use this
experience as a backdrop for the third article subtitled Ripples from the Gatherings
(Freedman & Combs, 2009). This article not only documents Michaels community
work, it also clearly illustrates how Jill and Gene have translated a narrative process
into their consulting with agencies and schools. It thus shows there is more than one
way to do the work that Michael originated. The article also captures the collaborative
1

It is Evan Imber-Blacks openness to new ideas and to the evolving process of family therapy
that has made this special section a reality.
2
A large thank you to Jill Freedman for consulting with me at the beginning of this process and
for helping me consider the important contributions of so many in the narrative community.

www.FamilyProcess.org

DICKERSON

317

dimension of a narrative approach and is a cogent summary of many narrative

practices. Jill and Genes respectful stance toward those who consult with them reflects Michaels ways of inviting local knowledge and of asking questions about
meaning in the specific contexts of peoples lives.
And lastly, Chris Beels, an historian of psychotherapies (see A Different Story: The
Rise of Narrative in Psychotherapy, Beels, 2001), traces the growth of the narrative
metaphor and the decentering of Michael White and David Epston to a what next
for all of us to ponder (Beels, 2009). Chris situates the evolution of narrative practice
in his personal recollection of a movement from a psychoanalytic approach to family
therapy to the social constructionist, poststructuralist wave of the mid-1980s to the
present. As a history, the article draws on Chriss insider knowledge in a reflexive
commentary that looks toward future possibilities. The organizing question of this
commentary centers on leadership and why narrative developments will continue over
time. Chriss response argues that Michael White and David Epston intentionally
created a decentering process as they began to teach their work across hemispheres.
The effects of what he calls this centrifugal force are the developments of diverse
practices in local communities.
The authors of this special section all had a long standing personal connection with
Michael White and each thought carefully about how their writing might further our
learning about narrative ideas and practices. In the spirit of a narrative approach, this
effort was truly a collaborative one. Each author had knowledge of the others, and
they all were in contact with each other as this section developed. And because each
contributor had a close relationship with Michael White, it became difficult to follow
the usual scholarly writing practice and refer to him as White. We agreed on
Michael White, while sometimes shortening it to the familiar Michael. We think
Michael would have preferred this. All who knew him were touched by his presence;
we all dearly miss him. David Epston, at a memorial in Auckland, New Zealand, said,
He tried to give away everything he had to each and every one of us who was willing
to watch, listen or read (Epston, 2008, p. 3). We hope that this special section responds to what Michael gave to us and to what we have learned from him. We also
hope that he would be pleased that we hold commitments to continuing to learn and to
take narrative practices forward, toward what might become possible for us to know
and share with others.3

REFERENCES
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Beels, C.C. (2001). A different story: The rise of narrative in psychotherapy. Phoenix, AZ: Zeig,
Tucker, & Theissen.
Beels, C. (2009). Some historical conditions of narrative work. Family Process, 48, 363378.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carey, M., Walther, S., & Russell, S. (2009). The absent but implicit: A map to support therapeutic inquiry. Family Process, 48, 319331.
Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
3
I am extremely grateful to my colleague Kathie Crocket who participated in editing this
introduction. Kathie is the Director of the Counselor Education Program at the University of
Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand, where she teaches narrative ideas and practices.

Fam. Proc., Vol. 48, September, 2009

318

FAMILY PROCESS

Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations (M. Joughin, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.).
New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2002). Dialogues II (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). New
York: Columbia University Press.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Epston, D. (2008). Saying hullo again, remembering Michael White. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 27, 110.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power-knowledge; selected interviews and other writings. New York:
Pantheon.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York: Norton.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (2009). Narrative ideas for consulting with communities and organizations: Ripples from the gatherings. Family Process, 48, 347362.
Monk, G., Winslade, J., Crocket, K., & Epston, D. (Eds.) (1997). Narrative therapy in practice:
An archaeology of hope. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Russell, S., & Carey, M. (2004). Narrative therapyFresponding to your questions. Adelaide,
South Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Winslade, J. (2009). Tracing lines of flight: Implications of the work of Gilles Deleuze for narrative practice. Family Process, 48, 332346.
Winslade, J., & Hedke, L. (2008). Michael White: Fragments of an event. International Journal
of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 2, 7379.

www.FamilyProcess.org