Abstract
M.A. (Clinical Psychology)
This study traces the description of Paradox as a therapeutic measure by numerous therapists since Erikson first used the paradox in the form of positive reframing
during the thirties. Major theoretical definitions of the paradoxical communication are reviewed. The therapeutic Paradoxical intervention is categorized into a series of relatively circumscribed intervention strategies, each of which shares theoretical similarities but emphasizes different aspects of the paradox. The paradoxical intervention has been utilized in a number of ways depending on the epistemological premise of the therapist, and the theory of change accepted within this epistemology. The study initially discusses the paradoxical intervention as designed as an isolated intervention within a linear cause and effect paradigm. Within a context of power and control, the paradoxical intervention was used by therapists of the Mental Research Institute (Watzlavick et a1. 1977) to emphasize and maintain the hierarchical
distinction between the therapists and patient. The Strategic approaches including those of Fisch, Weakland and Segal (1982) Haley (1963) and Papp (1979) involve direct and planned influence of persons and are based, in large part, on an analysis of the power relationships that they aim to modify (Golann 1988.) According to Bogdan (1982) the Milan approach even with its systemic circular approach, involves the use of the paradoxical intervention as a means of simultaneously influencing the behavior of all the members of a family. The paradoxical intervention is discussed within a circular cybernetic paradigm following De Shazer's (1982) explanation of a therapeutic intervention. De Shazer (1982) sees the paradoxical intervention as one type of intervention within a pattern of isomorphic interventions, and stresses the necessity for this intervention to follow the family interaction patterns. De Shazer developed the concept of Isomorphism and used this as a prescriptive tool for guiding the therapists efforts to promote change, by intervening from a different angle, based on the description of family patterns. Where the family's interactive patterns are paradoxical in nature, a paradoxical intervention would be appropriate. With this emphasis on a more encompassing pattern of interventions based on patterns of client-family interactions, the significance of the feedback processes within the relationship between therapist and client in the design and utilization of the paradoxical intervention is stressed. The study concludes that the psychotherapeutic relationship between the therapist system and the client system can be seen to contextualize and provide meaning to the paradoxical intervention.