Relational externalising
• Totalising language: I am depressed
• Traditional externalizing: Depression as a separate problem with a life of its own.
• Relational externalizing: The depressed, low feelings you are noticing when…
• Enables person to look in on themselves in relation to the issue
• Supports contextualizing and moving out of binary
• “of me, but not the whole of me”

Central to Johnella Bird’s approach is what she describes as relational languaging, a linguistic strategy which can be used in any conversation. Johnella Bird contrasts it with totalising language which is the prevailing language form used in everyday and professional discourse. For instance, I am clever, dumb, sad, violent, happy, confident, depressed. The structure of the sentence identifies the person with the problem. It generates a binary, either I am this or I am not this. There is an implication that these descriptions represent static attributes of a person who is defined by them.

Consider this with the example of the idea that you are confident or not confident. Everyone displays some confidence in some context, even if only in everyday tasks such as brushing teeth or buttering toast. Conversely it would be unusual to find someone who displayed confidence in every situation. Thus rather than conversing about your being confident or not, a conversation about:

“the confidence you showed when …”

is much more likely to bring forward resource. One might explore times when you have felt confident, what has contributed towards that, how things might be different if you started to develop a sense of confidence and what might indicate that feelings of confidence were starting to emerge.

Traditional externalizing is a linguistic strategy developed by White and Epston (White and Epston 1990). It involves separating the problem from the person. Ideally the person’s own language is used but externalisation has been used with OCD and Anorexia Nervosa. It opens up conversations such as:

"What sort of effect does depression have on your life?"
"How does OCD trick you into believing that if you don’t wash your hands for 20 minutes you will get sick?"

It can be used with hitting, behaviour problems, depression, etc. Rather than the person being the problem, the problem becomes the problem. It is particularly useful with a specific issue and for younger children. However, where the issues people are struggling with are very pervasive they can be difficult to separate and place outside self. Externalising ‘lack of confidence’ is somewhat awkward. Also, when traditional externalizing is of a generalized idea, such as perfectionism, OCD or Anorexia it can be quite distant from the person’s experience. The focus with relational externalizing is to explore the person’s specific experience. Once an externalized issue becomes identified it can develop a life of its own and lack fluidity. It is also possible for the externalized problem to develop a life of its own and become a kind of a monster which can become overpowering for the person. With relational externalizing the person’s response needs to be listened to carefully, with consideration for shifting or changing the metaphor.

Relational externalizing enables the person to look in on themselves in relation to the issue:

“This sense of being depressed you are describing”
“The sadness you are feeling”
“This hope/fear you hold”
“This hitting you engage in”
“The voices you hear”
“The suicidal thoughts you experience”

The difference between this and ordinary language is felt, rather than heard. It creates space between the person and the problem, but a relational connection. Rather than being separated from the person it puts the feeling or idea in relation to the person. For example:

“This hitting you engage in”

enables some separation between the person and the hitting but responsibility remains with the person.

Relational externalising leads into mindfulness, by inviting the person to reflect on their experience while staying in connection with it. It supports agency, the person is described as being active. It opens space to move out of binary and creates a platform for contextualizing:

“The voices I heard when …”
“the suicidal thoughts you experience when …”

In contrast to both totalizing language and traditional externalizing, with relational externalizing, this experience is articulated as “of me but not the whole of me”.

Compare:

"Are you suicidal?" versus "Are you experiencing suicidal thoughts?"
"Are you depressed?" versus "Are you noticing times of lowered mood?"
"Are you a confident person?" versus "Are there areas or aspects in which you have a sense of confidence?"
"Are you an OK parent?" versus "What parenting that you do would you describe as OK?"
"Are you a close family?" versus "What sorts of closeness do you notice in your family?"
"Is she attached to you?" versus "What signs of attachment does she show?"
"Have you grieved for …?" versus "What sorts of grieving have different members of the family engaged in?"
"Do you trust Johnny again?" versus "Are you noticing signs of trust starting to build again?"

This can also be helpful in third person conversations with other professionals. For instance: “That boy is a liar.”

Inquiry: “What are some of the situations where you have noticed the lying happening?”, opens possibilities.

It opens the possibility of contextualizing. If we are talking about lying which is noticed when …, then there is an opening to understanding the lying and an implication that there are times when the lying doesn't happen.