Working with Metaphor

in Narrative Therapy
Teresa Legowski
Keith Brownlee

ABSTRACT. Very few approaches allow the client generated meta-

phor to be the central theme of therapy without prescriptive and inter-
pretative intervention from the therapist. This paper explores the devel-
opment of client generated metaphors from the narrative therapy
perspective. The temptation to follow therapist directed metaphors is
discussed. The process of externalization as the development of a cli-
ent-generated metaphor is considered. We discuss the use of metaphor
in generating solutions that consider a continuum of options which
reflects the complexity and depth of many clients’ ‘problem-saturated’
stories. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery
Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com>
Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> E 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc.
All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Metaphor, narrative therapy, externalization

Historically, the dominant use of metaphor in clinical practice has

been largely a therapist directed activity (Bergman, 1985; Combs &
Freedman, 1990; Dielman, Stevens & Lopez, 1984; Dolan, 1991;
Haley, 1981; Matthews, 1984; Peeks, 1989; Piercy & Tubbs, 1996;

Teresa Legowski, is Certified Social Worker and Addictions Counsellor at the

Sister Margaret Smith Centre, St. Joseph’s Hospital, 35 North Algoma Street, Thun-
der Bay, Ontario, P7B 5G7 Canada.
Keith Brownlee, is Associate Professor, Department of Social Work, Lakehead
University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 5E1 Canada.
Address correspondence to Dr. Keith Brownlee, Department of Social Work,
Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 5E1, Canada.
Journal of Family Psychotherapy, Vol. 12(1) 2001
E 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 19
20 JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

Shilts & Ray, 1991; Waters & Lawrence, 1993). This has included
stories, tasks, rituals designed by the therapist, anecdotes and meta-
phoric objects used during therapy. Some methods are therapist di-
rected but client generated, such as art therapy, play therapy, letter
writing, journaling, audio and video taping and psychodrama (Diel-
man, Stevens & Lopez, 1984; Gil, 1988 & 1991; Haley, 1981; James,
1989; James & Nasjleti, 1993; Peeks, 1989). Recent trends in thera-
peutic practice, especially narrative therapy, have been to carefully
scrutinize and eschew dominance by the therapist, including how met-
aphors are generated and incorporated within therapy. In this paper we
examine both implicit and direct metaphors associated with narrative
therapy that when uncritically introduced can inadvertently contribute
to disempowerment.
Metaphor is from the Greek word metaphora meaning a transfer.
Individually, meta means along with, beyond, while phore means
thing or part bearing (Random House/Webster’s College Dictionary,
1996). Thus the roots of the word metaphor suggest the meaning
‘going beyond the part bearing,’ something that transfers from one to
the other thereby extending or introducing new meaning. The essential
value of metaphor for therapy lies in the transfer of meaning, the
capacity to bridge concepts and the capacity to extend the imagination
into recognizing new possibilities. Schön (1979) argues that in the
therapeutic context, metaphor can be thought of as referring to, ‘‘a
certain kind of product–a perspective or frame, a way of looking at
things–and to a certain kind of process by which new perspectives on
the world come into existence’’ (p. 254). It is this idea of metaphor
occurring at multiple levels within therapy that we wish to address in
this paper. At the first level is the implicit metaphor, the metaphor that
structures the frame of reference for therapy, such as ‘therapy is prob-
lem solving,’ or ‘the family is a system.’ The second is the direct use
of metaphor, the introduction of metaphor as content in the therapy
and as a revisioning process with the client.

NARRATIVE AS A METAPHOR
The implicit metaphor in narrative therapy is the notion of narrative
itself. The idea that it is through language and stories that our under-
standing and experience of the world is structured. A narrative meta-
phor is based on the premise that ‘reality’ is constituted by society, that
 Teresa Legowski and Keith Brownlee 21

it is constructed and maintained by the members of a particular society

in the stories of daily interaction and across generations (Freedman &
Combs, 1996). These social metaphors are regarded as influencing
and shaping individual metaphors. Thus, problems are viewed as be-
ing located within their cultural context as well as individual experi-
ence (Zimmerman & Dickerson, 1996). White and Epston (1990)
consider social science analogies such as: positivism, game theory or
role theory as emerging from the socio-political context. They regard
the structuring of psychotherapy according to these metaphors as a
continuation of the ‘unitary truth discourses’ of the dominant culture
(White & Epston, 1990, p. 28). Based on the postmodern postulate
that reality is subjective and individually constructed, White and Eps-
ton (1990) assert that there is no essential or true narrative. Each
individual’s story is a situated, local discourse. Meaning is derived
through the structuring of experience into stories and the performance
of these stories is constitutive of lives and relationships. Thus narrative
therapy ‘‘is about the retelling and reliving of stories’’ (Freedman &
Combs, 1996, p. 33).
Since the metaphor of narrative becomes the means through which
the therapist filters and understands the client’s experiences and the
mode through which the therapist orientates the discussion, narrative
itself is an implicit metaphor. It shapes the form of the therapy, deter-
mining the questions that can be asked as well as the ones that will not
be asked, and gives rise to the very nature of the encounter. Simply
choosing this construction of how knowledge is gained and experience
is structured is to apply a metaphor that is transparent and seldom the
focus of the conversation between client and therapist. The risk is that
this inherent invisibility removes from the client the possibility of
choice. The client can not ask that the therapist refrain from viewing
the world in narrative terms or to adopt a different frame of reference.
Such a request could only be viewed in terms of the frame of reference
that is being protested and would initiate an impasse.
If the therapist is to remain true to the dictum of collaboration and
not to emerge as the senior partner in the relationship, then the thera-
pist should declare his or her frame of reference. Calaghan, Naugle,
and Follette (1996) note that ‘‘Clients often present for therapy with
preconceptions regarding how they should engage therapy as well as
what they expect from a therapist’’ (p. 385). A client for instance may
expect that the therapist will listen to their concerns and then offer the
22 JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

client practical advice. Expectations about therapy may arise from any
number of sources, such as cultural expectations, opinions of friends
or the media (Wright & Davis, 1994). When this advice is not forth-
coming, or expectations are not met, the client may experience consid-
erable frustration. A response that dismisses such expectations may
represent a negation and subjugation of the client’s construction of
‘reality’ and a privileging of the therapist’s construction.
The individual seeking therapy is entitled to know the implications
for the relationship of the narrative frame of reference as well as how
therapy may unfold. Winslade, Crocket, and Monk (1997) describe the
dilemma created by a client asking, ‘‘I would like you to tell me the
current thinking on how homosexuality occurs’’ (p. 59). The dilemma
presented by this request was for a narrative therapist to assume the
mantle of expert. By offering an opinion, the therapist would be cast in
the role of having privileged information regarding the aetiology of
homosexuality. Winslade et al. discuss how a response to this question
that accepted her invitation to assume the expert position would there-
after establish the relationship as expert and client. Winslade et al. note
that this was in fact what occurred and they reported it as a ‘second
best option’ (p. 59). It is interesting to note, however, that in their
discussion of this issue and the options considered, an honest descrip-
tion of the narrative metaphor as a frame of reference was not present-
ed as one of them.
It is the contention of the present paper that a reflective approach to
practice would represent an attempt to be explicit about the sources of
knowledge that inform practice. It would require the therapist to be
prepared to have a conversation with the client about narrative and to
discuss with the client the implications of what it represents as an
organizing metaphor. Thus, from the reflective position it would be
regarded as more appropriate to respond to the question posed by
Winslade et al’s. client by simply stating how answering this question
would introduce an imbalance in the relationship that they were not
comfortable with. This would surely lead to a deeper conversation
about the role of the therapist and the process of change in narrative
practice. We contend that a conversation of this nature should occur
whenever the client makes it clear that they have expectations that
appear to be at odds with the values of narrative practice. We also
contend that the client has a right to be informed about the therapist’s
orientation before they even meet. We regard the clarification of infor-
 Teresa Legowski and Keith Brownlee 23

mation about orientation as an important first step with clients. It is

information that would be included in any discussion of what the
client is looking for from therapy and whether they are comfortable
with the relationship with that particular therapist and within the con-
text of the particular agency. Some agencies have specialist orienta-
tions, such as 12 steps, cognitive behavioural or a solution focussed
approach and this too should be clarified.

EXTERNALIZATION AS BUILDING A METAPHOR

Narrative therapy as presented by White and Epston (1990) does

not specifically use the term metaphor when describing the process of
story telling. Rather, they use the term analogy, or ‘story analogy.’
Freedman and Combs (1996) use the term ‘narrative metaphor’ side
by side with ‘story analogy.’ The act of telling a story is in itself the
metaphor. White (1989) states that externalizing is the key to the
re-authoring of stories. The process of externalization is ‘‘an approach
that encourages persons to objectify, and at times, to personify, the
problems that they experience as oppressive’’ (White, 1989, p. 1).
Externalizing allows the problem to be regarded as a separate and
external entity to the person or relationship. This opens the door for
the client to describe themselves and the problem in relationship with
each other. By experiencing themselves as separate from the problem
people begin to,
notice other possibilities spontaneously. They begin to appreciate
other self-narratives. In fact, they begin to experience themselves
differently as persons. (Zimmerman & Dickerson, 1996, p. 77)
They begin to notice how the processes of power have become
personally internalized and that the problem exists within a context of
oppression (Adams-Westcott & Isenbart, 1996).
Narrative therapy has become well known for the names that were
developed for externalizing the problems encountered in practice such
as ‘Sneaky Poo’ (White, 1984), ‘Fear Busting and Monster Taming’
(White, 1985), ‘King Tiger and Roaring Tummies’ (Wood, 1988) and
‘Itchy Fingers’ (Menses & Durant, 1986). The very nature of these
terms alone attest to the fact that they are essentially therapist initiated.
It is highly unlikely that such catchy terms are consistently offered by
24 JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

such a wide variety of clients. Winslade, Crocket, and Monk (1997)

refer to this issue and describe ‘Sneaky Poo’ as having become some-
thing of a cliché. However, they refer to it as having lost some of its
therapeutic freshness rather than raising questions about the therapist
directedness that it implies.
A further limitation of the use of such terms is their invitation to
dichotomous thinking. The client may see him or herself in a ‘prob-
lem-saturated’ situation and then create a label that invites the client to
view the problem in relatively simple, unitary terms where the solu-
tion is to achieve the opposite to the label. A situation in which ‘Poo’
is no longer sneaky or ‘temper’ is tamed and so on. White (1991) has
described this process as follows,
As persons separate from the dominant or totalizing stories that
are constitutive of their lives, it becomes more possible for them
to orient themselves to aspects of experience that contradict these
knowledges. (p. 29)
The limitation occurs if the naming of a problem introduces an
undue restriction on the range of possible options for the client. In
many situations the problem is more complex than implied by the
simplicity of the label. For example, a person experiencing loneliness
is likely to see defeating loneliness as experiencing popularity and
sociability. However, there are many shades of meaning lost between
the polarities of loneliness and popularity if we choose to focus strictly
on the dichotomy of the presence or the absence of the problem. The
therapist could take the opportunity to explore with the client some of
the benefits that loneliness may provide and some of the negative
consequences of popularity. The client might find that when she feels
lonely she writes poetry and participates in woodworking and knitting.
Loneliness may be a vehicle for creativity for this person. Popularity
may impose a lack of privacy. More diverse metaphors for externaliz-
ing could incorporate these multiple meanings since the image is able
to contain whole aspects and diverse perspectives.
In our own work, we have experimented with inviting the client to
give the problem a proper name or an occupation, such as ‘Ralph the
robber.’ In many cases, especially with children, we would encourage
them to draw a picture of the problem, which also promotes external-
ization. If the problem was objectified by the client, metaphorically
depicting the problem as a wall or a whip, for example, we would ask
 Teresa Legowski and Keith Brownlee 25

questions that would elicit a detailed description of the object. Ques-

tions such as: how tall and how thick is the wall; where are you in
relation to the wall; what is on the inside/outside of the wall; how does
this wall make you feel? Essentially, the process of personalizing or
objectifying the problem, depicting it in a form outside the person,
talking about it as if it had separate motives and a life of its own, is
creating a metaphor of the problem.
The externalization process creates a bridge from the individual to
culture and society through the use of story telling. Metaphor provides
a bridge. It gives the externalized concept an image a role about which
the client can then converse. Thus, metaphor easily affords itself to the
telling of the person’s story. The influence of the problem can be
traced through the story line of, for example, how Ralph the robber is
effecting the family’s life. By using the metaphor created by the client,
the therapist elicits the client’s story of the problem. Descriptions,
actions, communications the metaphor may have, are drawn from the
client by questions asked by the therapist.
Sources for metaphor generation are sought in dreams, art, poetry
writing or a combination of these. On some occasions we have noticed
clients begin with art and then create a poem that accompanies the
work of art, thus including multiple layers of meaning and allowing
for a greater appreciation of the interconnectedness of the issues be-
fore the client. One example of such a metaphor was a dream re-
counted by a client that became the basis for a meaningful metaphor
for her life. The dream was about the client playing poker with a
number of other players. One player tried to cheat. The client was
aware that this player was dealing incorrectly, hiding cards and using
other forms of cheating. A large amount of money was at stake. The
client described the other woman as sneaky. Yet the client still ended
up with the winning hand. In reality, the client was a woman who had
engaged in sexually inappropriate behaviour with other individuals.
She saw the dream as representing three facets of her own behaviour.
The first is the woman that tries to be sneaky and get away with illegal
behaviour. The second is the woman that is wise, accepting and under-
standing and could act as a mediator. The third is the woman who
could act as a mediator, but was choosing to play cards with the
‘sneaky’ woman. The client identified the dream as a metaphor for her
own moral development. She used this metaphor to highlight the
different roles that she could find herself playing and the different
26 JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

strengths, choices and skills that she possessed. Questions posed by

the therapist enabled the client to externalize these roles without losing
their complexity. This complexity could be lost with a dichotomous
metaphor of good and bad behaviour. This formulation is empowering
as it enables her to realise that she is making a choice.
This method of generating a metaphor depends on the client’s will-
ingness and ability to use imagination. Not all people will want to
participate. It is important to be sensitive to this position and careful to
follow the lead of the client by inviting them into the process. This is
especially evident in cases of a person seeking therapy who has an
intractable mental illness or a physiological condition. Naturally, the
person would like to be rid of the problem, but it is probably unlikely.
The creation of a metaphor affords the possibility of a metaphorical
dialogue between the person and the problem, an arena in which
negotiations could take place, so to speak. White (1989) has begun to
address this issue in terms of re-authoring the stories about person-
hood and engages the client in ‘externalizing conversations’ (Hart,
1995). Tomm (1989) discusses this issue from a different perspective
by calling the process of externalizing the problem as a ‘progressive,’
‘continuous process’ in which:
It is . . . extremely important for the therapist to remain mindful
of the problematic effects of high expectations for constructive
change. This is especially true when working with patients strug-
gling with chronic problems. (p. 57)
No story is set in polarity; rather it exists in the context of self,
culture and relationship, which is full of diversity. The therapist needs
to understand that a complete elimination of the problem is not realis-
tically possible. The role that the problem plays in the person’s life
needs to be investigated within the framework of the metaphor. In this
way the therapist does not ‘‘inadvertently contribute to persons’ expe-
riences of oppression’’ (White, 1989, p. 6).
In order to discover the healthy intentions that may be embedded
within a client’s unhealthy behaviour, we have to be willing to
listen to their whole story, both their successes and their failures.
We cannot simply project competent striving upon them; we
have to find where it truly lives in them. (Waters & Lawrence,
1993, pp. 55-56)
 Teresa Legowski and Keith Brownlee 27

The above process stresses that the metaphor be client generated.

The therapist does not create nor interpret the images, but merely asks
questions to develop and ‘thicken’ (Geertz, 1978) the metaphor and
the story. By creating their own metaphors, clients are using their own
resources in storying, reframing and solving their problems. This is an
empowering process since it depends on the clients’ weaving of their
own images, from the past, present and into the future. If the therapist
interprets the images or suggests images, the meaning of the metaphor
may be misconstrued, since a metaphor can have a multiplicity of
meanings. A post-modernist approach would allow the client to speak
to their own experience and define the meaning of their experience
within the context of their own life and culture.

REFERENCES

Adams-Westcott, J. & Isenbart, D. (1996). Creating preferred relationships: The

politics of recovery from child sexual abuse. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 1,
13-30.
Bergman, J. (1985). Fishing for Baracuda. New York: W.W. Norton.
Calaghan, G. M., Naugle, A. E., & Follette, W. C. (1996). Useful constructions of the
client-therapist relationship. Psychotherapy, 33, 381-390.
Combs, G. & Freedman, J. (1990). Symbol, story and ceremony: Using metaphor in
individual and family therapy. New York: W.W. Norton.
Dielman, C., Stevens, K. & Lopez, F. (1984). The strategic use of symptoms as
metaphors in family therapy: Some case illustrations. Journal of Strategic &
Systemic Therapies, 3, 29-34.
Dolan, Y. (1991). Resolving sexual abuse. New York: W.W. Norton.
Freedman, J. & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of
preferred realities. New York: W.W. Norton.
Geertz, C. (1978). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gil, E. (1990). Treatment of adult survivors of childhood abuse. Walnut Creek, CA:
Launch Press.
Gil, E. (1991). The healing power of play: Working with abused children. New York:
Guilford Press.
Haley, J. (1981). Problem-solving therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Limited.
James, B. (1989). Treating traumatized children: New insights and creative interven-
tions. Lexington, MS: Lexington Books.
James, B. & Nasjleti, M. (1993). Treating sexually abused children and their fami-
lies. Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.
Matthews, W. (1984). Ericksonian and Milan therapy: An intersection between circu-
lar questioning and therapeutic metaphor. Journal of Strategic & Systemic Thera-
pies, 3, 16-25.
Menses, G. & Durant, M. (1986). Contextual residential care: The application of the
28 JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOTHERAPY

principle of cybernetic therapy to the residential treatment of irresponsible adoles-

cents and their families. Dulwhich Centre Review, 3-14.
Peeks, B. (1989). Strategies for solving children’s problems understood as behaviou-
ral metaphors. Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 8, 22-25.
Piercy, F.P. & Tubbs, C. (1996). Tapping internal resources: Guided imagery in
couple therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 15, 53-64.
Schön, D. A. (1979). Genarative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in
social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.). Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Shilts, L.G. & Ray, W. A. (1991). Therapeutic letters: Pacing with the system.
Journal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 10, 92-99.
Tomm, K. (1989) Externalizing the problem and internalizing personal agency. Jour-
nal of Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 8, 54-59.
Waters, D. & Lawrence, E. (1993). Creating a therapeutic vision. The Family Thera-
py Networker, 17, 53-58.
White, M. (1984). Psuedo-encopresis: From avalanche to victory, from viscious to
virtuous cycles. Family Systems Medicine, 2, 150-160.
White, M. (1985). Fear Busting and Monster Taming: An approach to the fears of
young children. Dulwich Centre Review, 29-34.
White, M. (1989). The externalizing of the problem and the reauthoring of lives and
relationships. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Summer, 1-17.
White, M. (1991). Deconstruction and therapy. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 3, 21-40.
White, M. & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York:
W.W. Norton.
Winslade, J., Crocket, K., & Monk, G. (1997). The therapeutic relationship. In Monk,
G., Winslade, J., Crocket, K., & Epston, D. (Eds.). Narrative therapy in practice:
The archaeology of hope. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wood, A. (1988). King Tiger and Roaring Tummies: A novel way of helping young
children and their families change. Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 49-63.
Wright, J. H. & Davis, D. (1994). The therapeutic relationship in cognitive-behavior-
al therapy: Patient perceptions and therapist responses. Cognitive and Behavioral
Practice, 1, 25-45.
Zimmerman, J.L. & Dickerson, V.C. (1996). If problems talked: Narrative therapy in
action. New York: Guilford Press.