Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441

DOI 10.1007/s10591-013-9286-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Utilization of Clients’ Metaphors to Punctuate Solution-

Focused Brief Therapy Interventions: A Case Illustration

Jacqueline K. Clarke

Published online: 20 September 2013

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Post-modernist family therapy allows for pragmatism, which is embedded

within a linguistic system. This linguistic system is socially constructed in conversation,
generates multiple meanings, and realities in the therapeutic process. Thus the role of post-
modernistic therapists is to accept meanings and realities as constructed in context of
therapist-client collaboration through conversations, making it possible for therapists to
privilege clients’ uniqueness, language, creativity, and resources in therapy. In privileging
clients’ uniqueness, language, creativity, and resources, family therapists utilize whatever
works in creating efficacy in doing therapy. As a result, doing family therapy such as
solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) exemplifies therapists’ utilization of clients’ lan-
guage to enhance therapeutic interventions. Family therapists using SFBT in working with
clients utilize the interactional patterns that connect family dynamics: family interactional
patterns involve language, which entail clients’ metaphors. Metaphors emerge in everyday
conversations and may support clients in developing solutions to problems. Metaphors
have been shown to be effective in therapy, yet there is a gap in current literature dis-
cussing the utilization of clients’ metaphors in SFBT interventions. This paper illustrates
utilization of clients’ metaphors and how they punctuate SFBT interventions in solution-
focused building. Transcript excerpts from therapy sessions with a daughter and mother
show their metaphors leading to solutions, metaphors as joining, and metaphors of power
punctuating SFBT interventions and connecting patterns in solution-focused building. The
utilization of clients’ metaphors to punctuate SFBT interventions offers suggestions in
expanding the practices of family therapy within a systemic context.

Keywords Solution-focused
Interventions
Punctuate
Clients’ metaphors

J. K. Clarke (&)
Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
e-mail: jacqclar@nova.edu

123
Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441 427

Clients’ Metaphors in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Interventions

The purpose of therapy is to enable clients to achieve a legitimate personal goal as

advantageous as possible (Bertrando 2007). In the post-modernistic era clients are viewed
as collaborators of the therapeutic process, hence therapists and clients are able to derive
meanings through conversations. Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) is among a post-
modern therapy and is a future-focused as well as goal-oriented approach therapy. It was
developed initially by Insoo Kim Berg, Steve de Shazer, their colleagues, and clients at the
Milwaukee Brief Family Therapy Center in the early 1980s (de Shazer et al. 2007). The
SFBT focuses on accepting clients’ views, perceptions, and behaviors as valuable
resources, which can be incorporated into the therapy process. Its beliefs embrace the
expectations that therapists will privilege clients’ language (Bliss and Bray 2009), which
include the use of clients’ metaphors. The use of metaphors in therapy is not a new
phenomenon in therapy, as clients often use metaphors to think, to explain themselves, to
co-construct their experiences, and to arrange their talk (Lyness and Thomas 1995). Their
choices of metaphors often reveal their attitudes as well as their values and during the
process of therapy clients may use metaphors to go back through their unique views of
their world and experiences, assisting them to expand their conversations (Cameron 2008;
Thomas 1995). Therefore, clients’ use of metaphors in their everyday language serves as a
means of expanding their conversations, cognitive processes, and experiences.
Through the practice of incorporating clients’ everyday life-experiences in therapy,
SFBT provides opportunities to use clients’ metaphors as a resource in the therapy process.
Yet there is a paucity of current literature discussing the utilization of clients’ metaphors in
SFBT interventions. This paper offers a case illustration with a daughter and mother in the
utilization of clients’ metaphors in SFBT. It illustrates the therapist’s experience in
punctuating several SFBT interventions with clients’ metaphors in three ways: (a) clients’
metaphors leading to solution-focused building, (b) clients’ metaphors as joining, and
(c) clients’ metaphors of power. Lastly, the therapist illustrates connecting patterns of
solutions to clients’ metaphors while using SFBT interventions.

Connecting Clients’ Metaphors in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy

Definitions

Metaphors are often present in clients’ conversations. According to Barker (1996), ‘‘The
essence of metaphor is the use of one thing to represent another’’ (p. 11); thus a metaphor
creates an equation between two things (Roffman 2008). For example, a wife referring to
her husband stated, ‘‘He was the apple of my eye.’’ The metaphor, ‘‘the apple of my eye,’’
describes her love, as well as her value and connectedness. However, for a metaphor to be
meaningful it needs to be connected to a specific context. As Bateson (1979) stated,
‘‘Without context, words and actions have no meaning at all’’ (p. 15). In SFBT, the context
for metaphors is derived from the conversation between the client and therapist. The
precise meaning that a client attaches to a metaphor is a derivative of the ‘‘client’s own
inner resources: memories, dreams, goals, fears, hopes, and unconscious learning’’ (Dolan
1986, p. 1). Thus SFBT interventions punctuated with clients’ metaphors offer suggestions
for achieving solutions in systemic family therapy. Punctuating interventions refers to
inserting clients’ metaphors in SFBT’s questions to draw distinctions in a sequence of
events or thought processes (Keeney 1983). The drawing of distinctions is circular within

123
428 Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441

an interactional flow and consists of the therapist learning from the client what is useful
during therapy. Through this process clients’ creativity emerges. Clients’ creativity is seen
to produce optimism, playful behavior, and the use of metaphors that can potentially lead
to favorable outcomes in therapy (Morgan and Wampler 2003).
Berg and Dolan (2001) illustrated that ‘‘those who use SFBT are known to use whatever
works, a very pragmatic and realistic approach’’ (p. 17). As a result, SFBT therapists can
use clients’ metaphors, if these metaphors are useful in generating solutions for the clients.
Solutions for the clients are negotiated, consensual, and cooperative endeavors in which
the therapist and clients jointly produce various language games (de Shazer 1991). Within
these language games are clients’ metaphors. These metaphors seep into conversation
during the therapy process and, when recognized by therapists, can lead to clients’ solu-
tions. Thus, SFBT therapists are able to work with clients on how to navigate toward their
solutions and projected goals by incorporating the clients’ metaphors. These goals are
concretized in the clients’ words so they become pragmatic within the clients’ reality.
Pragmatic skills in therapy are contingent on collective use of resources and understanding
between the therapist and client, which promote connections in therapy (Wulff and St.
George 2007). Such connections may include the application of clients’ metaphors.
Patterns of resources and understanding that connect the entire therapeutic system can
be illustrated through metaphors (Bateson 1979). Metaphors depend on context, words, and
actions through which meanings are derived (Bateson). Meanings are extrapolated from
clients’ words, anecdotes, and other resources that are brought to therapy. Therefore, the
SFBT therapist can use clients’ metaphors to join with them in meaningful ways, yet also
be alert when metaphors of power emerge.
Metaphors of power are language games, having the tendency to create or maintain
self defense and/or self-fulfilling prophecies in relation to diagnostic labeling within
therapist-to-client, family member-to-client, and/or treatment community-to-client rela-
tionships (Simon and Nelson 2007). For instance, when a child or client is seen as
potentially resistant to a parent’s or therapist’s uses of ‘power,’ a resistance develops
where the parent or therapist suggestions run counter to the child’s or client’s desires (de
Shazer 1988a). For example, a mother in therapy with an adolescent son describes his
‘‘two-faced’’ behavior. Her son explains that his ‘‘two-faced’’ behavior serves as his way
of coping with challenges and meeting his goals in school and at home. The metaphor
‘‘two-faced’’ could be understood in the context of diagnostic labels of behavior disorders
such as ‘‘borderline’’ disorder. This could have the potential of generating self-defensive
responses from the son, in explaining his behavior as useful to his life situation. On the
other hand, a diagnostic label may become a self-fulfilling prophecy to his mother as she
could become inclined to focus on the symptoms rather than processing the usefulness of
her son’s responses about his behavior. This metaphor ‘‘two-faced’’ or ‘‘borderline’’
behavior could therefore be seen as a metaphor of power, because of its potential in
creating limitations to experience clients holistically, thus may promote barriers to lis-
tening to clients’ views of how behaviors may/may not be useful to them. Although
diagnostic labels are helpful in determining scientific objectivity, therapists should
incorporate a holistic view of clients’ behavior in order to better ‘‘learn how to co-
construct useful conversations, about clients’ goals, resources, strengths, and possibilities’’
(Simon and Nelson 2007, p. 2).
A solution-focused therapist focusing on pragmatism, realism, flexibility, and a non-
expert stance can provide impetus in shifting therapy forward and away from metaphors of
power by exploring the son’s competencies, as well as times when the mother found her
son’s behavior satisfactory, which is a key SFBT technique of applying exceptions.

123
Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441 429

Shifting the therapeutic conversation to focus on competencies and satisfactory behavior

would operate in a creative frame that encourages the clients to do more of what works for
them in their relationship, thereby reducing the impact associated with the metaphor of
power used by the clients. The decision to incorporate interventions appropriate to the
therapeutic process is based on therapists’ competencies; hence therapists’ utilizing
potential metaphors of power is dependent on the metaphor’s usefulness in therapy; which
is essential to all therapeutic processing.

The SFBT Founders and Metaphors in Therapy

Solution-focused brief therapy is strongly influenced by the work of Bateson, Erickson,

Wittgenstein, de Shazer, and Berg (Thomas and Nelson 2007). Bateson’s contribution to
SFBT stemmed from his use of abductions that illustrated the interconnectedness of mind,
from which he deduced metaphors as ‘‘patterns that connect all living creatures’’ (Bateson
1979, p. 8). Thus, SFBT adopted from Bateson the practice that clients and therapists are
involved in constructing the change process. In other words, as Keeney (1983) highlighted,
‘‘Both therapist and client are parts of co-learning and co-evolution’’ (p. 133). In facili-
tating the change process, SFBT demonstrates unique engagements in which the ‘‘therapist
contextualizes old perceptions, ideas, and behavior without prejudice’’ (Thomas and
Nelson 2007, p. 5), thereby fostering solutions.
Erickson demonstrated his skills with devices such as metaphors to move clients’
associative processes and mental skills in certain directions to achieve therapeutic goals
(Erickson and Rossi 1980b). He believed that hypnotic suggestions were actually the
process of evoking and utilizing a client’s own mental processes in ways that were outside
his usual range of ego control (Erickson and Rossi). Utilization of what the client presents
make significant contextual shifts in relation to problems such that new actions and/or
meanings are raised. Such contextual shifts require bridges from one experience domain to
another and are often constructed of metaphors (Roffman 2008). Though Erickson’s
concept of utilization has been given a non-hypnotic emphasis in SFBT, its use in sessions
essentially impacted the therapeutic process (Berg and Dolan 2001).
Berg and de Shazer were inspired not only by Bateson and Erickson, but also by
Wittgenstein. For Wittgenstein, metaphors were cues to his philosophical expositions
(Wright 1977/1980). Wittgenstein emphasized that metaphors fostered inner processes that
required outward expression (as cited in de Shazer et al. 2007). For instance, a person may
describe experiencing a ‘‘shady feeling’’ towards a friend, which may be expressed in one’s
behavior within the relationship. In one context, a shady feeling may be interpreted as
feelings of distrust, which create a need to be cautious; it may also be seen as feeling
sheltered, an experience that fosters comfort. For Wittgenstein, metaphors had meanings
within contexts, whose meanings arise from each utterance or within language games (de
Shazer 1985; Lugg 2000; Shawver 2001).
For de Shazer (1988a) the emphasis of doing therapy was more important than applying
theory. Traditionally, applying theory focused on a lineal perspective, based on objectivity,
causal effect as well as had an ‘‘either/or’’ frame. However, since the 1980s doing therapy
began to emphasize language, subjectivity as well as a systemic view and included a both
‘‘or/and’’ frame, allowing the therapist to learn from clients, using phrases and questions
that correlated to clients’ feedback on what was useful for them in therapy. As a result, a
theory does not take precedence over what is useful for a client, but ‘‘theory and practice
each influence the other, often in recursive or mutually defining ways’’ (de Shazer 1988a,
p. 70). Through the construct of usefulness, SFBT therapists can navigate and utilize

123
430 Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441

clients’ metaphors in therapy through observing how clients language such metaphors. The
uses of metaphors therefore create possibilities that expand communication in the thera-
peutic process (Thomas 2010).

The Theory of SFBT and Using Metaphors

The theory of SFBT begins with the end in mind (Berg and Dolan 2001), directing clients
towards solution-focused building from the first session. The therapist and client join
together to form a therapeutic unit based on mutual trust and cooperation because the
outcome of therapy is dependent on both the client and the therapist (Berg and Miller
1992). Such practice involved what Bateson (1979) referred to as double description.
Double description was described as ‘‘when two people interact, each member punctuates
the flow of interaction’’ (Keeney 1983, p. 37). This interaction occurs in context as
meanings are extrapolated by using the clients’ language, which may include incorporating
clients’ metaphors. Connecting clients’ metaphors to the therapeutic joining process pro-
motes therapists’ curiosity and flexibility in doing therapy. This leads to a SFBT therapist
taking the stance of respecting clients as experts on their experiences and the therapist as
expert on the process of therapy. This view fosters an egalitarian attitude as joining evolves
throughout therapy. As therapeutic joining persists, bridges of solutions are made through
therapeutic interventions. These bridges are often constructed of metaphors (Roffman
2008) through joining with clients’ resources or competence and asking questions about
clients’ interests, careers, or hobbies (de Shazer et al. 2007).
In SFBT, therapists engage clients in talking about the problem, but focus on leading
clients outside the realm of the problem. Thus clients are invited to talk about the problem,
but to realize that, ‘‘solutions always come before problems’’ (de Shazer 1988b, p. 6).
Additionally, talking about the problem is done in a non-judgmental, non-intrusive, and
gentle manner (de Shazer et al. 2007). This systemic nature of SFBT promotes distinctions
in the therapy process: interventions for SFBT therapists do not prescribe solutions, but
gently nudge clients by being attentive to the questions asked and allowing clients to find
their own solutions. Thus SFBT therapists hold to the principle of Wittgenstein that ‘‘you
cannot lead people to what is good, you can only lead them to some place or other: The
good is outside the space of facts’’ (Wright 1977/1980, p. 3e).
In addition, the principle of solution-focused therapy evolved from the influence of
Milton Erickson’s indirect forms of suggestions (de Shazer et al. 2007; Erickson and Rossi
1980b). Erickson believed that indirect suggestions gave clients access to their own options
(Erickson and Rossi 1980a). The principle of indirect suggestions is evident in SFBT’s
questions, for example, when an SFBT therapist typically asks in the first session, ‘‘What
changes have you noticed since you called to make the appointment?’’ By asking this
question, the therapist indirectly suggests that clients already have the strengths and
resiliencies from the beginning of the session to find solutions to their problems (de Shazer
& Dolan). Thus SFBT questions are phrased and languaged to assist clients in focusing on
solutions and are the ‘‘difference which makes a difference’’ (Bateson 1972, p. 315), with
the interventions. This solution-focused building is achieved through using SFBT inter-
ventions, such as the miracle, scaling, exception, present-and-future focused, and ‘‘what is
better since the last session’’ questions (de Shazer et al. 2007). These questions are
intended to assess progress clients make inside and outside the therapy room; as well as
encourage clients to appropriate their resources in finding solutions for what brought them
to therapy.

123
Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441 431

For SFBT, the miracle questions can be used to assist clients to specify or concretize
their goals toward solution building. In other words, ‘‘the miracle question is one of the
best questions in our repertoire for helping clients describe how they will know therapy is
over and one that consistently provides useful descriptions’’ (de Shazer et al. 2007, p. 40).
When therapists hold miracle questions in the frame of the conversation, such questions are
able to assist the clients to visualize future solutions, which the clients may emotionally
experience. Furthermore, clients may at times behave as if they are experiencing what they
perceived or described as their miracle. Thus clients’ responses to the miracle questions
channel them to conceptualize their desires and project into the future perceived
achievements of their solutions. Such solutions may be a visualization of metaphors used in
their conversations, which therapist can use to frame the miracle question.
SFBT uses scaling questions to qualify clients’ confidence that change is possible. Berg
and Dolan (2001) stated that scaling questions help clients ‘‘visualize the next level in their
progress and identify what additional efforts they may have to put out’’ (p. 9). In other
words, scaling questions invite clients to rate themselves on a given scaling range, the
therapist then asks clients what it would take to get to a higher or lower level, depending on
the desired solution. Thus scaling questions serve as patterns of connections for clients to
measure, assess, and evaluate their own situations, impressions, observations, and pre-
dictions (Berg and Dolan 2001; Shilt 2010).
SFBT uses the exception questions to assess the pattern for when the problem did not
exist, thereby increasing the chance of the client recognizing self-generated problem
solving (de Shazer 1985). Exception questions are usually punctuated with therapist
enthusiasm and support, and so accentuate solution talk (de Shazer et al. 2007). This begins
to build on clients’ resources in generating change: change, according to Eve Lipchik,
‘‘occurs through language when recognition of exceptions and existing and potential
strengths creates actions’’ (Young 2005, p. 71). Exception questions allow therapists to
shift processes in therapeutic intervention, requiring ‘‘a way of knowing and a way of
knowing about his knowing’’ (Keeney 1983, p. 29). This may lead to the ability to draw
distinctions from clients’ metaphors in connecting patterns of solution, which is crucial to
the therapy process (Keeney).
The drawings of distinctions provide therapists with the opportunity to project from the
present to the future, through asking questions that foster future solutions. Present-and-
future-focused questions therefore, reflect the belief that problems are best solved by
focusing on what is already working and how a client would like his or her life to be (de
Shazer et al. 2007). Such questions allow therapists and clients to move the conversation
from the present to the future, which provides situations leading to clients’ solutions.
Solution-focused building hinges on the way questions are asked and which parts of the
clients’ utterances therapists choose to highlight (de Shazer et al. 2007; McKergow and
Lorman 2009). Since life is dynamic, SFBT therapists believe that clients’ experiences
change even when they are out of the therapy room. Thus, the ‘‘what is better since the last
session’’ question punctuates solutions because it is intended to assess progress clients
make outside the therapy room (de Shazer et al. 2007). Hence, the goal of therapy is
ongoing and directed at what clients wish to achieve (Thomas and Nelson 2007).
In asking questions to determine clients’ goals, therapists are attuned to clients’
behaviors, attitudes, desires, and language, and these direct therapists to decide when to
connect clients’ metaphors during the therapy process. Also in SFBT, therapists respect
what clients desire to work on, fulfilling the central tenet, ‘‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’’ (de
Shazer 1990, p. 93). Additionally, among SFBT tenets is the view that ‘‘once a small
change has been made, it will lead to a series of further changes, which in turn lead to

123
432 Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441

others, gradually resulting in a much larger systemic change without major disruption’’ (de
Shazer et al. 2007, p. 2).
The questions and clients’ goals are interwoven with compliments. Compliments are an
integral part of SFBT because they acknowledge appreciation for the clients’ lives, suc-
cesses, and positive intentions (Berg and Dolan 2001). Through respecting, co-learning,
and incorporating clients’ competence, the use of clients’ metaphors in therapy can be
facilitated, and thus aid in complimenting the clients. Thus compliments in therapy assist in
embracing clients’ metaphors as well as expanding the therapeutic conversation.
Within the therapeutic conversation therapists can determine clients’ relationship stance
for therapy. For SFBT, there are three therapist-client relationship stances: customer,
visitor, and complainant. A customer type stance indicates that either during or at the end
of a treatment session, a complaint or goal for treatment has been identified jointly by the
client and therapist (Berg and Miller 1992). In addition, a customer stance provides a cue to
the therapist that the client is open to new ideas, suggestions, and encouragement (Thomas
and Nelson 2007). Visitor type clients are often spectators in therapy, usually such clients
are mandated or felt under duress in attending therapy. As a result, solution focused goals
are best framed within clients’ desires to be freed from such duress. The visitor stance is
similar to the complainant, but different: Berg and Miller (1992) define a complainant as a
client who has not been able to identify the concrete steps needed to bring about a solution.
Referring to the complainant de Shazer et al. (2007) pointed out that ‘‘some clients have
difficulties articulating any goal at all, much less a solution focused goal’’ (p. 6). In general,
a therapist can assess the therapist-client relationship stance and focus on therapeutic
joining with clients through compliments, the questions asked in therapy, and the solutions
leading to the clients’ goals. SFBT interventions provide flexibility which allow for a
therapist to use metaphors that socially construct solutions in joining with clients, thereby
appropriating power in therapy, and connecting patterns of solutions to clients’ metaphors.
The case illustration below will highlight these SFBT theoretical interventions while uti-
lizing clients’ metaphors in the therapy process.

Case Illustration

This case illustration discusses a daughter and mother in therapy. At the time the clients
attended sessions at a therapy center, Monique and Annique were 24 and 51 years old
respectively.1 Monique, the first of three children born to Annique, was a musician who
was outspoken, cordial, and affectionate. Annique was a divorced mother who shared
musical interests and the music business with Monique. She was articulate, sociable,
caring, and nurturing. She also embraced being involved with a positive social network that
she termed ‘‘the village’’ who helped her raise her children. Both Annique and Monique
relished being from a musical, jovial, and closely-knit family.
Monique initiated therapy, made the appointment, and attended the first session alone.
In the first session, she expressed that her mother would be attending subsequent sessions.
Over the course of 4 months, they came for seven sessions. Five sessions were conjoint,
and two were individual sessions, one each for Monique and Annique alone. This author
was the therapist who facilitated the case, while a team of doctoral students and a clinical
supervisor watched from behind a one-way mirror. As recommended by de Shazer et al.
(2007), during each session, mid-session breaks were taken to consult with the team.

1
All names relating to this case have been changed to preserve confidentiality.

123
Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441 433

At the first session, Monique shared that she decided to attend therapy because she was
frustrated with her family, especially her mother who ‘‘rallied the troops and staged a sort
of intervention-type situation.’’ The intervention came on the premise of her receiving a
‘‘driving under the influence’’ (DUI) charge over a year before the ‘‘intervention.’’ Mo-
nique shared being befuddled about the ‘‘intervention.’’ Further, she successfully com-
pleted her probation counseling and was satisfied with her progress. As a result, her goal
was not to focus on the DUI charge, because she was satisfied with the progress gained
from her participation in the DUI counseling. In SFBT, therapists respect what clients
desire to work on, so Monique had the opportunity to process the goals she wanted to
achieve in therapy. Treatment goals may therefore be viewed as remaining the same from
the initial goals of the first session or goals may vary from session to session.
In the subsequent sessions attended by Monique and Annique, they verbalized an
incident involving Annique confronting Monique’s boyfriend, Josh. This confrontation
resulted in conflict between Monique and Annique and adversely affected their relation-
ship. As a result, both were willing to attend therapy to explore solutions to overcome the
conflict in their relationship. During the session, Annique’s and Monique’s metaphors were
used in addressing the therapeutic process leading to solution-focused building through to
future desires for their relationship.

Clients’ Metaphors Leading to Solution-Focused Building

A therapist using clients’ metaphors leading to solutions need to be attentive to clients’

behaviors, desires, and language. It is through therapist asking questions of clients that
metaphors emerge in the conversation, which can become clients’ goal for therapy. To
determine the clients’ solution-focused goals, the therapist had the following conversation
with Annique in the therapy session:
Therapist If at the end of session you were able to say it was worth your while being
here, what would need to happen?
Annique I would hope, I guess that we have the love of having a very extraordinary
close relationship, all of us. I think Monique and me more so, because we
share the music
Monique (Chiming in) and because I was such a wonderful child
Annique (Looking at daughter) that’s a given… to come at this point where we can
(leaning forward towards daughter) take the gloves off to express in a safe
environment what has challenged us in the last couple months. And remove
this veil (circling right palm over the left slowly), this kind of block, (pause)
that I feel is in our relationship right now. We have always being able to
dialogue freely and comfortably, which has not been the case in the last
4 months and I don’t like that
Therapist So Annique… when this veil block is removed, what will you observe that is
different?
Annique You know for 23 years I got, ‘‘Hi Mom, how are you doing (racy, sing-song
tone)?’’ The last few months, it has been, ‘‘Hi–M–o-m’’ (speaking in a
dragging voice tone)… the difference would be that I’m greeted with delight
that would be a change, which would be nice
Therapist So if after leaving here, you were to go home, and you went to bed, and a
miracle happened while you were sleeping… and you woke up but did not

123
434 Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441

know the miracle had taken place… and this veil was not a kind of block any
more and you were getting the delighted greetings, what would you see?
Annique She would return my phone calls… we would be spending some time per week…
even 2 hours having lunch or something… we have not done that for some time now
Annique used three metaphors: (a) ‘‘take the gloves off,’’ (b) ‘‘this veil,’’ and (c) ‘‘this
kind of block.’’ In therapy, giving privilege to a client’s metaphor may prove challenging,
but the cues rest in the contexts and the meanings clients assigned to the metaphors. In
determining the use of clients’ metaphors as solutions, the therapist and client carried out
the therapeutic conversation, aimed at establishing goals that informed them on what to
observe when the goals were achieved. When clients use more than one metaphor in
response to a solution-focused question, SFBT therapists can privilege the clients’ response
by asking follow-up questions. In this case, the therapist chose to punctuate with ‘‘veil
block’’ because of the gestures and Annique’s emphasis connected to ‘‘this veil’’ and ‘‘this
kind of block.’’ Also, the therapist felt that the punctuation of ‘‘veil block’’ would indicate
what de Shazer and Berg (1992) illustrated as a changing shift where a metaphor can lead
to a solution. The miracle question was also framed using Annique’s metaphor of ‘‘this veil
block’’ which allowed her to conceptualize her future desired solution.
In the process of clients establishing goals for treatment varying therapist-client rela-
tionship stances may be portrayed. Annique’s response in determining her solution
building goal portrayed a customer type therapist-client relationship stance. In this session,
Annique shared her goals for therapy. Her solution was to remove ‘‘this veil,’’ which built
on her goals to be greeted with delight, to have her telephone calls returned, and to spend at
least two hours per week with Monique. Annique was able to specify and concretize her
goals towards solution building, as she exhibited a customer stance during this session.
In asking Monique about a solution for therapy, it was apparent that her solution was not
forthcoming. Instead, two client-therapist relationship stances became evident in the
therapy process—complainant and customer:
Therapist So Monique, if at the end of the session you were to say that you accomplished
something in being here what would be useful for you?
Monique Well… my reason for being here is two-fold I guess. Initially my mother and
those other people… and I highly disagree with the whole idea
Monique’s response indicated her client-therapist stance as a complainant. Monique’s
response as a complainant did not signify she was resistant to therapy; SFBT therapists do
not use the term ‘‘client’s resistance’’ (de Shazer 1984). When a client exhibits a com-
plainant-type stance, such a person needs to be heard by the therapist as much as anyone
else (Thomas and Nelson 2007). Therefore, initially in therapy the focus with the com-
plainant-type would not be one of solution-focused building, but for the therapist to ‘listen’
and ‘sympathize’ (Thomas and Nelson 2007, p. 16) with the client. Monique’s response to
the solution question informed the therapist to shift the focus to therapeutic joining, which
served progressively in arriving at solution-focused building and customer-type stance
during and throughout the therapeutic process.

Clients’ Metaphors as Joining

Joining is a double description where both therapist and clients punctuate the flow of the
conversation by building on mutual trust and may include using clients’ metaphors as
bridges in moving towards solutions. Such bridges of solutions may emerge from client’s

123
Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441 435

language, interest, and/or experiences. These may be in the form of using a client’s
everyday experiences to punctuate therapeutic interventions. Since Monique had an
interest in music, in the session she was asked to suggest the line of a song or chorus that
would capture what she desired from therapy:
Therapist Monique, you described how you are working on your music career, I’m
curious and wondering if you were to imagine a line of a song or chorus that
would capture your success or maybe what you want to achieve at the end of
therapy, what might that be?
Monique Umm ah… from the Indigo Girls, ‘‘The less I seek my source from some definitive,
the closer I am to fine’’ (repeated line and began singing as mother joined in)
Therapist Wow… that’s a great line!
In joining with Monique around her competence, the therapist learned some aspects of
her philosophy on life. This approach echoed Wittgenstein’s view that metaphors were
cues to philosophical disposition. Monique’s philosophical disposition emerged in the
therapeutic process through incorporating her resources; thereby leading to her solution
evolving. This was achieved by the therapist showing Monique respect while adopting a
not-knowing stance and remaining curious in the process. Also, in complimenting Mo-
nique, the therapist continued with facilitating therapeutic joining. Therapeutic joining
further connected to the therapist listening for metaphorical cues to use in the process of
therapy. Such cues can be in the form of metaphors of power, to aid therapists to decipher
when best to use or not to use them in the therapeutic interventions.

Clients’ Metaphors of Power

Clients can use metaphor of power to maintain problem talk or as ways in finding solutions.
The therapist may use exception questions to move the conversation from problem talk to
solution focus. In the following transcript, Annique and Monique talked about the problem,
which resulted in the use of an exception question to shift the interactional flow:
Annique The boyfriend that Monique had previous to this was a pretty raging alcoholic
and a negative relationship, and she and I went to the mat on that one. Right or
wrong for my children and my friends, if I see a Mack truck in their way, I’m
going to do whatever I can to push them out of the road. Now watching her
with this boyfriend, he is a Mack truck…. Marlon was a Mack truck fellow…
Now what I understand is; Mommy and Aunt Clare have poked their heads in
relationship number 3, another alcoholic
Therapist Okay
Monique She used the analogy of the Mack truck, but the thing about that if there is a
Mack truck or not a Mack truck. If you know where you are on the road or you
are on the highway and you know what’s around you… she is there and she
smacked me down in the middle of the road, breaks my arms in the process.
When the Mack truck was 7 miles down the road
Therapist When has there been a time, you disagreed but it did not affect your
relationship in this way?
Annique She and I have been in adversarial situations and even when we were over
Marlon, the previous boyfriend, we were working together to understand each
other’s perspective at that point, as opposed to what it feels like to me now,
which is distrustful and adversarial

123
436 Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441

In talking about the problem, Annique and Monique had different perspectives
regarding how they were affected. Their ‘‘Mack truck’’ illustration was a metaphor of
power. In their talk about the problem, the clients got into what Bateson (1972) depicted as
‘‘muddles.’’ Muddles are ways clients or therapists become stuck in problem talk due to
perpetual problem focus, conflict, or competition, thereby generating rivalries or imbal-
ances within the relationship. For example, Annique viewed her use of the ‘‘Mack truck’’
metaphor as a way of protecting those she loved from harm. But her expression of the
‘‘Mack truck’’ in relation to Monique’s two boyfriends was that they were alcoholics.
Monique viewed the ‘‘Mack truck’’ metaphor as destructive and not respecting her ability
to take care of herself. This demonstrated Wittgenstein’s point about language games in
that ‘‘the meaning of words is determined by how they are used by the various participants
within a specific context’’ (as cited in de Shazer 1991, p. 71).
Metaphors that promote muddles tend to become metaphors of power if they perpetuate
conflict and are detrimental to the success of developing solutions in therapy (de Shazer
1988a). In using clients’ metaphors to punctuate SFBT’s interventions, therapists use their
judgment to decide whether using a metaphor of power is beneficial to the therapeutic
context. Thus, metaphors of power must be assessed in context to determine their useful-
ness. This may mean that punctuating a question with the metaphor is beneficial in the
present, or it may be better to hold the metaphor for future use, or to give up using the
metaphor to punctuate questions. There is no rule in determining whether to use metaphors
of power in any given context (Bateson 1972). This leaves therapists to ask themselves
whether the construct or metaphor of power is necessary for an effective therapeutic
framework, and/or whether the construct or metaphor of power is pragmatically useful’’ (de
Shazer 1988a). For SFBT therapists, a solution is not necessarily related to the problem;
therefore, shifting from the problem is beneficial to the clients (de Shazer et al. 2007).
It was not beneficial to punctuate the exception question with the clients’ use of ‘‘Mack
truck.’’ Steering the conversation through using the ‘‘Mack truck’’ metaphor, would keep
the clients stuck in problem talk because the metaphor held contradictions for both clients.
When a metaphor represents a contradiction to the therapy context, a therapist can decide
to refrain from using it as punctuation in such context (de Shazer 1988a). Instead, the
therapist can shift the focus of the conversation in therapy to allow the clients to reflect on
other times when the clients have successfully managed problems in their relationships.
This intervention aids the therapeutic process in shifting towards solutions. Therapeutic
shifts to solutions require moving away from muddles. When language games or meta-
phors get ‘‘muddled,’’ it is best to break up the game. As Bateson (1972) stated, ‘‘In order
to think new thoughts or to say new things, we have to break up all our ready-made ideas
and shuffle the pieces’’ (p. 16). Therefore, exception questions allow for shuffling, by
shifting clients to talk about times when the problem did not occur. This requires a
therapist to determine metaphors of power, and the timing of shifting the therapy process in
‘‘doing therapy’’ (de Shazer 1988a).

Connecting Patterns of Solutions to Clients’ Metaphors While Using SFBT

Interventions

Clients’ metaphors used in SFBT interventions form connecting patterns of solutions due
to the double description element in SFBT. The double descriptions punctuate the flow of
interaction and generate varying levels of communication (Keeney 1983). Such flow of

123
Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441 437

interaction is systemic, which is affected by symmetric and complementary interactions,

associative processes, mental skills, indirect suggestions, contextual shifts, and situational
changes. In SFBT, a therapist’s ability to assess the interactional flows in the therapy
process becomes crucial in solution-focused building. This solution-focused building is
achieved through using SFBT interventions questions. In assessing Monique’s and An-
nique’s solutions, a scaling question, a ‘‘what is better since the last session’’ question, and
a present-and-future-focused question were used. These questions connected patterns of
solutions to their metaphors used.

Connecting Patterns of Solution to Scaling Questions

In one conjoint session with Annique and Monique, a scaling question was asked to assist
them in reflecting on their inner processes:
Annique And part of the thing in coming here was to get it closer, somewhere to the
middle
Therapist So as you mentioned, getting it closer to the middle. How would you scale
your desire to be closer to the middle, if you were looking at 0–10? Where 0 is,
you are not at the middle you want, and 10 being you are at the middle you
want?
Annique I would say we have not yet passed a 3
Monique Yeah, I would have put it higher, somewhat (pause), I would have given it a 7
Therapist So there is a 7 and a 3
Annique It is not surprising, she came here with a specific issue and that discussion has
been raised
Therapist Annique, you said you are at a 3: What will it take for you to be at a 3.5?
Annique I pride myself on my parenting abilities
Therapist I was wondering, Monique, you said you were at a 7, what are some of the
reasons for it to be at a 7 and not 6?
Monique Because I have realized that there are places that my mother and I are going to
be super close, and there are going to be ways that she and I will disagree, and
there are going to be ways that I prefer to do things on my own
The scaling question allowed Annique to express her pride in her parenting ability,
while Monique verbalized her mental processes of patterns by moving to new perceptions
about her present and future relationship with her mother. This change depicted her
philosophical disposition, which she related in the line of the song cited earlier. Erickson
and Rossi (1980a) stated that, ‘‘when questioned, the human brain continues an exhaustive
search throughout its entire memory system on an unconscious level, even after the person
has found the answer that is apparently satisfactory on a conscious level’’ (p. 457). With
SFBT questions, clients are allowed to search for solutions and act on them. Monique’s and
Annique’s responses about achieving the middle each desired made each reflect on their
inner processes. Monique’s therapist-client relationship stance also shifted to being a
customer, in that she was able to verbalize her solutions.

The ‘‘What is Better Since the Last Session’’ Question and Clients’ Metaphors

The ‘‘what is better since the last session’’ question was used in the fourth conjoint session
with Annique and Monique, to assess their progress and for them to examine changes they
have made:

123
438 Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441

Therapist Since our last meeting and today, what have you noticed different with your
relationship?
Monique We have been hanging out more
Therapist Yeah, and one of your goals was to again talk more with each other and now
you are hanging out more. How has that been working for you?
Monique We are working through a lot of complex things as far as the changing nature
of our relationship and things that I might have issues about and vice versa. I
still, of course, like hanging out with her, she is still my mom yeah, and I try to
make time lately to hang out
Annique It’s really good, we have some hang-out times together… we’ve had about 2
or 3 now
Therapist When you hang out, what have you noticed that is different?
Monique I think (turning to mother), like that conversation we had last Tuesday, we
talked about what we want from each other; what we don’t want, so that’s step
number one… the issue we have of the Mack truck thing, you have to find
where that line between pushing me out of the way and breaking my shoulders
in the process of trying to help me avoid the Mack truck, versus you are
helping me and directing me and supporting me with what, I am doing.
Additionally, I think it is easier now because her whole bottom line is that she
wants me to be in the right path and things are going well
Therapist So there is an understanding of the Mack truck thing
Monique Yeah, the first was drinking, which I feel very comfortable saying has not been
an issue now, the other one was the relationship, which you know, it was very
fair what she has been saying, and I have been saying to her for a very long
time this is not something, in my mind, is going to last forever
The reintroduction of the ‘‘Mack truck’’ metaphor by Monique suggested that the
meaning and context of this initial metaphor of power changed. The usefulness of a
metaphor of power re-emerging and becoming appropriate in the therapy process suggests
that meanings and contexts of power attached to such metaphors also changed. Bateson
(1972) captured this idea: ‘‘It looks as though a conversation is a game if a person takes
part in it with one set of emotions or ideas—but not a ‘game’ if his ideas or emotions are
different’’ (p. 17). A metaphor of power re-emerging to become beneficial to the therapy
process occurs through construction of bridges, which create patterns of connections to
solutions. Such patterns of connections may become evident through the use of scaling
questions.
From the illustration above, patterns of changing behaviors between Annique and
Monique were drawn, connecting Annique’s metaphor of solution to therapeutic outcome.
Annique was engaging in more conversation with Monique. This indicated degrees of
movement towards Annique’s solution metaphor, which included the removal of ‘‘this
veil.’’ A solution was now linked to her goal in that they were ‘‘hanging out.’’ This
depicted small changes in their interactional pattern. When clients are able to identify
small changes in their therapeutic process, it can be the ‘‘difference which makes a
difference’’ (Bateson 1972, p. 315). The changes in Monique and Annique’s ‘‘hanging
out’’ more and shifting in the meanings and context attributed to the metaphor ‘‘Mack
truck’’ led to other changes, which allowed for present-and-future-focused intervention in
the therapy process.

123
Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441 439

Present-and-Future-Focused Questions to Clients’ Metaphors and Patterns of Solutions

Present-and-future-focused questions assist clients to transition from problem talk or what

is presently working to focus on what has changed and ways to achieve future desire. This
was demonstrated in Monique’s shift in the meaning of ‘‘Mack truck’’ leading to opening
conversation for situational changes that were occurring in other relationships:
Therapist You said last week that Josh was no longer your boyfriend?
Monique Yeah, we will be playing [music] together… but we are no longer together for
a month now
Therapist I am wondering, with him no longer being your boyfriend… what will be the
conversation that you will allow for your mother to have with you on the issue
of boyfriends, when there is a new boyfriend? What will be different?
Monique (Looking at Annique while speaking) I would say I’ve always felt that you had
every right to give me your opinion about whoever I’m involved with, your
opinion is welcomed
Annique And valued
Monique Yeah, but if it was not valued, it would not be welcomed… to give your
opinion and I want to hear it, okay!
Annique I understand!
Monique maintained the stance of desiring a close relationship with her mother. She
also wanted to hear her mother’s opinion, but wanted the level of interaction to be different
from before. In using SFBT’s present-and-future-focused intervention, Monique demon-
strated that she was capable of having her own intentions for her life (Berg and Dolan
2001). This suggested that clients ‘‘are experts on their own lives and know what will best
fit their needs’’ (Berg and Dolan 2001, p. 95).
Annique reported, at a 1 year follow-up, that their relationship was satisfactory since
therapy. She added that they had ‘‘bumps in the roads at times,’’ but nothing relating to the
issues that brought them to therapy. According to Wittgenstein:
If anyone should think he has solved the problem of life and feel like telling himself that
everything is quite easy now, he can see that he is wrong just by recalling that there was a
time when this ‘‘solution’’ had not been discovered. (Wright 1977/1980, p. 19e).
SFBT does not claim to eliminate clients’ life problems, but to provide them with
opportunities to find solutions to problems in their lives (de Shazer et al. 2007). For
Annique and Monique, ‘‘this veil’’ was no longer a block to their relationship. There were
also new meanings given to ‘‘a Mack truck.’’ These clients’ metaphors, ‘‘this veil’’ and ‘‘a
Mack truck,’’ evolved with new contexts and meanings in connecting patterns to their
solution building. Also, as clients find solutions, they acknowledge occurring changes
which may be ‘‘languaged’’ in additional metaphors that best suits their experiences. In this
case illustration, Annique’s use of ‘‘bumps in the roads at times’’ indicated her progressive
understanding in her relationship with Monique.

Discussion

The case illustrations presented in this paper show how clients’ metaphors, punctuated in
SFBT can be beneficial to therapy within a systemic family therapy context. The awareness
of these suggestions of how clients’ metaphors aid SFBT in working with the uniqueness of
clients serves to enhance therapy. With therapists and clients co-learning and co-evolving,

123
440 Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441

incorporating clients’ metaphors into the interventions of SFBT assist in enhancing the
therapist’s flexible and curious stance when working with clients in solution-focused
building. Clients’ metaphors are small branches of the clients’ language system, but SFBT
therapists know that small applications or changes can result in other far-reaching appli-
cations and/or changes. This therapist/author found that maintaining a curious therapeutic
stance in using clients’ metaphors opened new possibilities for solution-focused building.
Additionally, the use of clients’ metaphors in SFBT interventions can provide the
therapist with the opportunity of maintaining a non-expert, not-knowing, and flexible
stance in family therapy. Clients’ metaphors also have the possibility of impacting dif-
ferent levels of the therapy process such as building on solutions, joining, and detecting
‘‘muddles’’ that require shifts from elements of power. Metaphors also serve to connect
patterns of solutions which encourage clients’ in projecting desire towards their future
goals. In general, therapists using clients’ metaphors to punctuate SFBT’s interventions can
have far-reaching effects in the therapy process and within the field of family therapy.

References

Barker, P. (1996). Psychotherapeutic metaphors: A guide to theory and practice. New York, NY: Brunner/
Mazel.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to ecology of mind. Chicago, IL: The University Press of Chicago.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Berg, I., & Dolan, Y. (2001). Tales of solutions: A collection of hope-inspiring stories. New York, NY: W.
W. Norton & Company.
Berg, I., & Miller, S. (1992). Working with the problem drinker: A solution-focused approach. New York,
NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Bertrando, P. (2007). The dialogical therapist. Great Britain, London: Karnac Books.
Bliss, E., & Bray, D. (2009). The smallest solution focused particles: Towards a minimalist definition of
when therapy is solution focused. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 28(2), 62–74. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2009.
28.2.62.
Cameron, L. (2008). Metaphor talk. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thoughts
(pp. 197–211). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
de Shazer, S. (1984). The death of resistance. Family Process, 23, 11–17. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1985.
00011.x.
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
de Shazer, S. (1988a). A requiem for power. Contemporary Family Therapy, 10(2), 69–76. doi:10.1007/
BF00896586.
de Shazer, S. (1988b). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company.
de Shazer, S. (1990). What is it about brief therapy that works? In J. Zeig & S. Gilligan (Eds.), Myths,
methods and metaphors (pp. 90–99). New York, NY: Brunner/Muzel Publishers.
de Shazer, S. (1991). Putting difference to work. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
de Shazer, S., & Berg, I. (1992). Doing therapy: A post-structural re-vision. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 18, 71–81. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1992.tb00916x.
de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y., Korman, H., Trepper, T., McCollum, E., & Berg, I. (2007). More than miracles:
The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy. New York, NY: The Haworth Press.
Dolan, Y. (1986). Metaphors for motivation and intervention. In S. de Shazer & R. Kral (Eds.), Indirect
approaches in therapy: The family therapy collections (pp. 1–10). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers.
Erickson, M., & Rossi, E. (1980a). The direct forms of suggestion. In E. Rossi (Ed.), The nature of hypnosis
and suggestion: The collected papers of Milton H. Erickson, vol. I (pp. 452–477). New York, NY:
Irvington Publishers, Inc.
Erickson, M., & Rossi, E. (1980b). Two-level communication and the microdynamics of trance and sug-
gestion. In E. Rossi (Ed.), The nature of hypnosis and suggestion: The collected papers of Milton H.
Erickson, vol. I (pp. 430–451). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers, Inc.
Keeney, B. (1983). Aesthetics of change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

123
Contemp Fam Ther (2014) 36:426–441 441

Lugg, A. (2000). Wittgenstein’s investigations 1–133: A guide and interpretation. New York, NY: Routl-
edge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Lyness, K., & Thomas, V. (1995). Fitting a square peg in a square hole: Using metaphor in narrative therapy.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 17(1), 127–142. doi:10.1007/BF02249309.
McKergow, M., & Lorman, H. (2009). Inbetween-neither inside nor outside: The radical simplicity of
solution-focused brief therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 28(2), 34–49. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2009.28.
2.34.
Morgan, M., & Wampler, K. (2003). Fostering client creativity in family therapy: A process research study.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 25(2), 207–228. doi:10.1023_A_10236242177996.
Roffman, A. (2008). Men are grass: Bateson, Erickson, utilization and metaphor. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, 50(3), 247–257. doi:10.1080/00029157.2008.10401627.
Shawver, L. (2001). If Wittgenstein and Lyotard could talk with Jack and Jill: Towards postmodern family
therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 23(3), 232–252. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.00182.
Shilt, L. (2010). Using scaling questions to assess couple readiness for therapy. In T. S. Nelson (Ed.), Doing
something different: Solution-focused brief therapy practices (pp. 17–22). New York, NY: Taylor and
Francis Group.
Simon, J., & Nelson, T. (2007). Solution-focused brief practice with long-term clients in mental health
services: I am more than my label. New York: NY: The Haworth Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Thomas, V. (1995). Of thorns and roses: The use of the ‘‘brier rose’’ fairy tale in therapy with families of
gifted children. Contemporary Family Therapy, 17(1), 83–91. doi:10.1007/BF02249306.
Thomas, F. (2010). Semaphore metaphor… Two-by-four. In T. S. Nelson (Ed.), Doing something different:
Solution-focused brief therapy practices (pp. 219–224). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group.
Thomas, F., & Nelson, T. (2007). Assumptions and practices within the solution-focused brief therapy
tradition. In T. Nelson & F. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy: Clinical
application (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Haworth.
Wright, G. (Ed.). (1980). Culture and value: Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889–1951 (P. Winch, Trans.). Chicago,
IL: University Chicago Press. (Reprinted from Vermischte Bemerkungen, 1977, Frankfurt, am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag).
Wulff, D., & St. George, S. (2007). Family therapy, you make me feel like dancing. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 29(1–2), 87–97. doi:10.1007/s10591-007-9025-3.
Young, K. (2005). An interview with Eve Lipchik: Expanding solution-focused thinking. Journal of Sys-
temic Therapies, 24(1), 67–74. doi:10.1521/jsyt.24.1.67.655913.

123