Tracking Circularities – A collaborative invitation to conversations about patterns of actions, feelings and thoughts in families

Abstract 

This paper re-visits a widely employed technique, ‘tracking’ which  is often regarded to be part of the first phase of family therapy and associated especially with strategic approaches.   It is suggested that rather than seeing it as a first order approach it is consistent with constructivist and collaborative approaches to family therapy. It can be employed in a collaborative way to co-construct be and enrich (thicken) narratives. An integrative systemic/narrative/attachment (ANT) approach is employed to describe how tracking can be understood as promoting changes at multiple levels. Details of the procedure of engaging in tracking with individuals and families are described with clinical examples.  It is argued that tracking can be employed to offer collaborative invitations to engage in conversations  about actions, thoughts and feelings in family .

The practice of systemic family therapy has gone through a variety of evolutions, elaborations and transformations which have been mapped as phases encapsulating differences between first and second order cybernetics and also as a third order approach located in social constructionism Dallos and Draper ,2015Arguably, family therapy continues to be influenced by a number of core ideas from across these phases which include mutual influence, feedback, context and repetitive circular processes (Dallos and Draper, 2015). Arguments have raged about whether these things really exist or are better seen as elements of stories we can construct about family life. It is important to remember that the early systems theorists, such as, Ashby, Weiner, Weakland and others, emphasised that these concepts described processes, patterns  and not concrete entities – ie they are abstractions. Famously, Don Jackson described families ‘as if ‘acting on the basis of feedback and homeostatic patterns.  It was never intended to suggest that families ‘really’ are systems operating as cybernetic systems.  Recognising this tentative position of early systemic theory and practice can help us to retain and build on the contribution of concepts, such as  process and circularities.  It can help to soften the unhelpful and possibly erroneous distinction between first and second order cybernetics.  In line with this  there has been a whimsical suggestion of a 1.5 order approach which fits with a critical realist approach, which accepts   a social constructionist ‘not knowing’ approach with a view that we accumulate experiences with families that can offer helpful templates to guide our interventions (Smith,   ).  
 We might even ask what is it that most distinguishes a systemic approach to other therapies and theories of change?  I would argue, as Bateson (   ) suggested that we see patterns  of human interactions over time and also  how these  are shaped by the contexts in which people are immersed.  So, one way that these ideas continue to influence my thinking about families is that we look for and subsequently observe and describe repetitive patterns of interaction –  often called circularities.   This makes some intuitive as well as theoretically based sense in the idea and the experience of feeling ‘stuck’ with our problems.  We may feel ‘stuck’ in or work with a couple or family and see them as appearing to repeat patterns of actions that seem to be associated with them feeling distress and pain.  Similarly, we also hear about patterns when family members talk about feeling that they are ‘going round in circles’ with their problems or when someone in a therapy session remarks, “oh, here we go again!”. There is a danger of course in finding what we are looking for, so that we impose rather than really discover these patterns in families. But by analogy, if we know there are pearls in oysters we look where we expect them to be – in oysters rather than in elephants or oranges, and so are more likely to find some.  With oysters and pearls, we have objective evidence that these thigs exist. With families our observations are constructions we make and invitations into conversations.

So, we see tracking as part of an attempt to develop an approach to therapy that uses these core systemic ideas and is also interested in the stories and meanings that underpin and inform patterns and circularities in communication and behaviour. When family therapists describe their approach as integrative this is probably partly what they are also doing.   In our ANT approach we also add that emotion is central ingredient.   Patterns of actions and thoughts   in families are also under-pinned by passions. Families interact on the basis of strong passions, emotions, concerns, desires, and needs, in short, emotional connection. Attachment theory usefully offers a map to consider these passionate processes and we are very interested in how these both shape family patterns and are in turn shaped by them – mutually influencing each other. We have called our approach – Attachment Narrative Therapy (ANT) (, Dallos,  2014;  Dallos,  2023; Dallos and Vetere, 2009). At the centre of our approach is Bowlby’s (1980) idea that therapy requires the establishing of a ‘secure base’. This parallels the experience of a ‘safe haven’ or base of security that provides children with a sense of safety from which they can venture out, take risks and return to for protection by their attachment figures when necessary.

Techniques and  secure bases 

Quite rightly family therapy has had a wary approach to being ‘technique’ driven.   Especially important is the need to think about the relationship between therapist and family.  Techniques can promote an idea that we (therapists) are in charge and directing families to engage in techniques – do tings to them. But in fact we can think of techniques like ‘tracking’ as invitations for mutual and collaborative exploration.  The psychologist George Kelly (1955) described therapy and similar to the relationship between a researcher and her supervisor.  The supervisor is there to guide their exploration, data gathering and help them to make sense of their data.  The supervisor helps to shape the epistemologies of how and what sort of data we will gather, for example about thought, intentions and s feelings and what research design looking for facts or a qualitative exploration of meanings.  But a research supervisor does something else which may be equally important which is to reassure, inspire, sooth and comfort the researcher who may experience despair at their lack of progress, confusion about their findings and even despair that they are asking the wrong questions, challenge to what we hoped  and expected to find,  and a sense that the whole research project is a meaningless waste of time!!  Ask anyone who has done a PhD study whether it is not a process that it is  at times imbued with these and even more distressing feelings!  But of course, there is also the joy and exhilaration that we have discovered something new and valuable.

So, by analogy  therapy is also imbued with these and possibly stronger feelings.  Attempting techniques such as tracking without considering how we are all feeling is prone to disaster.   

“For not only young children, it is now clear, but human beings of all ages are found to be at their happiest and to be able to deploy their talents to best advantage when they are confident that, standing behind them are one or more trusted persons who will come to their aid should difficulties arise. The person trusted provides a secure base from which his (or her) companion can operate” (Bowlby, 1973).

Similarly, the therapist is seen as a transitional attachment figure for the family members. Of course this is not straightforward: different family members have different needs, see the therapist differently and may be at various stages of awareness of what they need. For example, some will feel safer if the therapist leaves them alone, some will feel safer if she encourages them to express their feelings, and some if they can engage in semantic or abstract discussions. This secure base then supports the processes of exploration, the attempts at relational change and carrying forward aspects of the secure base into the future. This is the basis of the ANT approach.

Alongside these broad stages, ANT proceeds through intergenerational, temporal systemic processes (Vetere and Dallos, 2008). For example:

1. The here and now :

• What are the current problems and problem–maintaining patterns in the family?
• What are the stories that are in turn maintaining these repetitive patterns, and which simultaneously are being reinforced by the patterns?
• How are attachment needs shaping and in turn being shaped by these patterns?
• What are their wishes for the future of their relationships and those of their children?

2. The past:

• What are the attachment experiences that the parents bring to the family that have formed the base of the family attachment organisation?
• What has happened in terms of attachment processes between family members across the generations?
• What unresolved attachment injuries or relational traumas have family members experienced with each other?

The therapeutic work involves a movement between consideration of the current patterns and a consideration of what fuels the feedback loops that maintain them, both from the past and in the present. As Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch (1974) emphasise, communication and feedback requires a sender and a receiver of a message. What is sent and what is received is coloured by the interpretations and consequent physical, verbal and emotional responses of each communicator.

Walking Around in Difficult Moments – The Mapping of Interactional Patterns

This intervention is based on the early systemic technique of mapping patterns of interaction between family members. It starts with the identification of a ‘problem’, with an attempt to elaborate and locate it within its specific contexts. This is a sort of ‘pinning down’ of the problem which if not, can flutter around all over the room without settling down long enough to focus on what is happening. 

We like to work with examples. We help identify for the person, couple, or family group a difficult event, episode or pattern. The therapist assists each person to articulate their experience in the pattern separately, or for the members of a couple, family, and so on. There is a directing of the focus to the critical and difficult part of the pattern, for example, the outburst of anger, conflict, criticism, hurt etc. The therapist supports the others in listening and staying responsive, and helps to validate their experiences. If we are working with couples, we reverse the experience of listening and validating before inviting them to turn to each other and comment on what they have heard. Helping family members develop their flexibility and responsiveness to each other is at the centre of our approach ie the secure base. If we are working with danger and violence, we establish a safety methodology for safe practice first (see Cooper and Vetere, 2005).

Identifying the sequence of actions
Typically it starts with an attempt to specify a specific episode or incident, by locating its temporal and causal features and identifying the actions that took place – who did or said what? 

1. When did the problem last occur? Where did it occur? What was happening before it started, who was involved etc?
2. Specify an initial action and person involved …mother did X. This is a matter of punctuation, rather than blame.
3. What happened next? Who responded and how?
4. What response followed?

For example, in the above circularity, the mother described how the pattern starts with her making dinner, then walking into her adolescent son’s room without knocking to tell him his dinner is ready……this leads to a symmetrical escalation between them with shouting and accusations but with an eventual apology from the son, Lee. A critical part of this pattern could be seen to be the sequence where the mother walks into Lee’s room and tells him his dinner is ready. He says he will come in a minute but his mother insists that he come immediately. This quickly escalates to mutual accusation and verbal abuse.It appears to be a negative and painful sequence for both of them but apparently is repeated almost every evening. We are interested in assisting, not only so that this pattern changes, but also to understand why it occurs. This may allow a more profound and enduring change to occur, so that the pattern does not manifest itself in some other new sequence between them or in another social setting.

Identifying the cognitions and feelings underlying each of the actions

It was clear as the mother described this sequence that she had a range of thoughts and feelings that were both triggered by and triggering her actions. In fact, as we ourselves start to think about this sequence; it invariably also triggers thoughts and feelings in us about how we might have acted, thought and felt in such a sequence, or what we might have done differently to avoid it. 

1. What was each person thinking at each point in the sequence?
2. What were they feeling and what did they want?
3. What do they think the other person/s were thinking and feeling?
4. Why did they react as they did?

Identifying attachment patterns and dilemmas

• Try to trace the thoughts and feelings that fuelled the action/reaction to the person’s underlying ‘internal working model’. These feelings might be from implicit memory and family members will need structured and paced help to articulate them.
• Consider with them where their working model derives from, for example, some previous history in the family. As children, family members may have learned certain expectations of self, others and of relationships, and these expectations may have become ‘taken for granted’. Bringing them out into the open, so to say, is an opportunity to reflect on early learning and some of the profound emotional and relational influences that have shaped our preferred styles of relating and our strategies for understanding and managing emotional experiences.
• Consider particular experiences of insults, hurts and humiliations – attachment injuries - that may also be a part of their ‘working model’. These experiences need gentle exploration in their own right, such that healing and rapprochement can be encouraged.
• Offer support and validation of family members’ experiences, so that ‘softer’ emotions can be expressed, such as fear of rejection, sadness for a feared loss, shame at being a disappointment to others, and so on. This careful, considerate and consistent validation makes empathic appreciation more likely and promotes curiosity about others’ experience and supports and develops the capacity for good listening, necessary for sustained and positive problem solving in the family.

In our example above, it appeared that the mother has previously experienced some domestic violence from Lee’s father. She was starting to see some of his behaviours as reminiscent of his father and was being driven by implicit memories of feeling threatened and hurt. Further to this, her own attachment relationship with her own mother had been problematic. Her mother had been unavailable and she was wanting to have a closer relationship with Lee. Cooking him meals he liked, was symbolic of her attempt to be a ‘better’ attachment figure. It was also interesting to note that in this sequence they also found a way of becoming close when Lee apologised. In effect, this had become an anxious-ambivalent attachment dynamic in which volatile emotional expression rather than considered thought brought about some intimacy. For Lee and his mother the closeness established was always tinged by the negative emotions that had been played out in achieving it.

Our example of Lee and his mother illustrates the initial explorative part of our wider approach embodying our ANT approach.This develops into considering the potential avenues and vehicles for achieving change.

Considering alternative courses of action

This stage utilises the above exploration of thoughts, feelings and attachment dynamics to consider how these may reveal possibilities for altering the problematic interaction patterns/episodes and this integrative formulation provides a road map for desired changes in relationships. De-escalating unhelpful arousal and unhelpful patterns of interaction provides the framework for promoting more satisfying and trusting interactions. The therapist has the responsibility to create a safe context within which trust can develop and family members can take emotional risks, for example, by showing vulnerability and the need for reassurance, by asking for and accepting comfort, and by offering reassurance and care. Reflection and reflexivity are promoted by understanding what makes it safer for family members to think about their own thoughts, feelings and behaviours, before inviting them to ‘stand in the emotional shoes’ of the others. This work is slow, paced and repetitive. If accessibility and responsiveness are the building blocks of trust and attachment security, they need time, patience, courage and care to redevelop in the face of past disappointments, conflicts and hurt.

In our example with Lee and his mother we spend time walking around in this episode, to make sure each feels fully listened to and understood by us in a way that validates their experiences, before we turn to the other to invite them to reflect on what they’ve heard. It was important to Lee to learn that his mother was trying hard to be a ‘better’ mother to him and that this generous intention on her part was overshadowed by entering his room without knocking and the subsequent conflict between them. His mother agreed to knock on the door in future. His compassion for his mother’s own early experiences softened his approach to her, and her apology for entering without knocking, allowed them both to reflect on how they might manage dinner times differently in the future. Lee was helped to acknowledge that his fiery response to her bordered on the intimidatory, and his apology to her helped his mother feel understood and appreciated by her son. Given that dinner occurred every day in their household, they had many opportunities to practice different ways of coming together at dinner time before their next therapy meeting.

Reflection and Integration

This process of tracking difficult moments and encounters in our closest relationships can be layered and attuned to fit the developmental and strategic needs of family members at different phases of the therapeutic work. For example, we can begin with a more behavioural action-oriented exploration of the sequence of interactions. Sometimes this is sufficient for effective problem solving. The very act of ‘externalising’ a sequence of behaviours by drawing the circularity on a large sheet of paper can be enough for people to ‘see’ what they might do differently to achieve a different and more desirable outcome. Such exploration can promote co-operation and recognition of shared goals and wishes. 

A further layer of complexity can be accessed by exploring the explicit and implicit meanings embedded within the sequence of acts and actions. For those family members who favour semantic understandings, this can be a good place in which to build trust in the therapeutic process. For those family members who struggle to think about their own actions in difficult moments, it can provide a calmer context in which to focus and be present in the discussions.

A deeper layer of complexity can be found by exploring the attachment significance held within these difficult moments of interactions when we feel under ‘attachment threat’ ie we fear loss, rejection, abandonment and shame, and powerless to assert ourselves, we may resort to aggression and verbal violence. The attachment significance of these moments may be difficult to articulate as they may be held as embodied, sensory experiences. ‘Walking around in these difficult moments’ slowly and carefully is crucial in identifying relational traumas, past and present, as often strategies of self-protection have inadvertently impeded intimacy in relationships.

In the example with Lee and his mother, they were helped to think about each other’s intentions and wishes by exploring the attachment significance embedded in this repetitive sequence of behaviour. Their sense of helplessness to change it had obscured their ability to recognise each other’s good intentions.

A final layer can be considered as integrative and reflective. In tracking these sequences, we help family members narrate their experiences in terms of actions, thoughts, feelings and embodied experiences. We help family members structure and integrate their accounts, and insert temporal contingencies, so the story becomes clearer and more coherent as an episode. Family members develop shared accounts of healing and reparation in a changed atmosphere of co-operation, and fuller appreciation of others’ intentions. Family life is never perfect, and although disappointment and hurt feelings may reduce with learning and practice, they can still be expected to occur. It is our hope that experiences of supported contingent and sensitive responding can rebuild trust and generalise into the future of family members’ lives together. A focus on the future and parents’ hopes for their children allows us to work with people’s aspirations, which so often underpin our wish for connection and our wish for change.

Professor Rudi Dallos, Professor & Research Director, School of Psychology
Professor Arlene Vetere, Professor Psychhd Clinical Psychology, University of Surrey
 
References
Bowlby J (1973)
Bowlby, J (1980) Attachment and Loss. Vol 3: Loss. New York: basic Books
Checkland
Cooper J and Vetere A (2005) Domestic Violence and Family Safety: A systemic approach to working with families. Chichester: Wiley
Dallos R and Draper R (2010) An Introduction to Family Therapy. 3rd edition. Maidenhead OU Press/McGraw Hill
Dallos R and Vetere A (2009) Systemic Therapy and Attachment Narratives: Applications in a range of clinical settings. London: Routledge
Vetere A and Dallos R (2008) Systemic therapy and attachment narratives. Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 374-385
Watzlawick P, Weakland J, and Fisch, R (1974) Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton
Weiner