The outcome of the process of making clear what each family member wants is that the therapist and the family both come to understand what the essential ingredients are of an experience which they will co-operatively build as a part of Phase II of the family therapy session. The set of overlapping experiences (Complex Equivalences) which result from connecting words with experience (de-nominalization) suggest the structure to be used for Phase II. Before the therapist and the family can begin effectively to construct this experience, one other class of information is necessary. Having a map of San Francisco is a valuable asset if you intend to visit and explore that city; however, the map is of little use unless you also know where you presently are in relation to San Francisco. Your map will be useful to you only if you can get to San Francisco from where you are now. The therapist's major task is to assist the family in moving from where they presently are to where they want to be. The other category of information necessary for the therapist is the present resources and current patterns of coping which now exist within the family.
Determining the Present State
(What is Currently Going On)
As the therapist employs the various ways of connecting language with experience and, at the same time, gathers the information necessary to understand the desired state of the family, he is engaged in the ongoing process of communicating with, observing and listening to the interaction of the various family members. Thus, while the focus of the content of Phase I is the desired state for the family, the process is the patterns of communication which are available within the family in its present state. Every verbal and nonverbal message of each family member and the verbal and non-verbal responses which those communications bring from the other family members constitute the process of coming to understand the family's present state.
The amount of communication which occurs in a family therapy session is enormous — it is, actually, much more than is needed for the therapist to determine the present state of the family system. With this in mind, we have isolated what we consider some of the more informative and distinctive features of family interaction; by isolating them, we are identifying one way for therapists to organize their experience in family therapy so that:
a) They will not be overwhelmed by the complexity of the situation;
And
b) They will detect the processes which will allow them to sufficiently understand the present state of the family system so that they may effectively create, with the family members, the experience in Phase II.
This is simply a way of saying that, in this phase, we are offering a model for family therapy which has been effective and useful in our experience; as with all models, it is neither exhaustive nor unique.
The first of these larger patterns is the calibrated communication cycles which already exist within the family. Typically, the calibrated loops which we encounter are already so established in the family process that the family members regard them as an unalterable part of their experience. Often, the very learning that these cycles can be changed is, perhaps, the most powerful information which we, as therapists, can provide for the family members. Our feeling is that, by understanding the underlying process by which these cycles of pain and miscommunication are created, we, as family therapists, can have more choices about the way in which we assist families both to overcome those loops already present in their system and to avoid forming new ones in the future. The general pattern of the process by which calibrated communication loops are formed in family systems can be represented as:
We discuss each of these steps in turn. The process most typically begins when some person in the family communicates incongruently; for example:
Mildred: ... I just wanted to help you out . . . (voice tone harsh, feet spread apart, standing, left arm extended with index finger pointing, shoulders hunched and tensed, breathing shallow, right hand balled into a fist placed on right hip,. . .
In the example given, the messages carried by the body posture and movements and the voice tonality match with each other but not with the words and syntax of the verbal communication — a classic case of incongruity. When faced with a communication such as this, the person (receiver) typically responds by deciding
(step 2 in the process) whether he will respond to the verbal message or the analogue messages.
…
George: (reducing his breathing, extending his hands toward Mildred, palms turned up, whining tonality) . . . I'm sorry, Mildred, I don't understand . . .
The other person in this family system decides to respond to the analogue portion of Mildred's incongruent communication. In this case, the decision is to give priority to the analogue messages arriving primarily through the visual channel rather than the auditory (verbal) channel. Now the process of generalization occurs; in this transcript, the person (George) becomes aware that he feels bad, and this is associated (consciously or not) with an entire set of experiences from the past, when Mildred has been angry with him and he has felt bad.
…
Therapist: . .. George, what are you aware of right now?
George: Well, my stomach's tight — I feel right bad. (turning to Mildred) Mildred, honey, I know that you are angry and . . .
The next step in the creation of a calibrated communication loop is the Complex Equivalence. The analogue signals or messages which George is attending to are accepted as being equivalent to the inner state labeled "anger" in Mildred. The process is completed with the next step, as George accepts the generalization of the Complex Equivalence itself — that is, anytime in the future that George detects the analogue messages described above from Mildred, he will "know" that she is angry. When this loop has been run often enough, the number of analogue cues which George will need to fire off this Complex Equivalence will be reduced. For example, we have encountered cases of calibrated communication in which the shrug of a shoulder, the change of a breathing pattern, or the shift of weight from one leg to another are messages sufficient to initiate a Complex Equivalence, with the accompanying Mind Reading and a calibrated loop. In each of these cases, the person doing the Mind Reading was wholly unaware of the observable portion of the Complex Equivalence — that is, the cue or signal which "gave" him the information was totally outside of his consciousness.
Another effective way of gathering information sufficient to understand the present state of the family system is to use as leads the nominalizations which the family members claim they want for themselves in the desired state. When a family member identifies the nominalization he wants for himself, he is, in effect, stating that he is not satisfied with what he is presently getting from the family in regard to this nominalization. Thus, as the therapist employs his skills to de-nominalize the family members' nominalizations into some set of Complex Equivalences which will identify actual, observable behavior, he can have the family member give (verbally or by acting out) an example of how what happens in his or her present experiences in the family stops him from getting what he wants. Almost invariably, in our experience, the family member presents a case of calibrated communication which is at the center of much pain and dissatisfaction in the family system.