In Brief
I have a short elevator speech I say to most of my clients when discussing the way they can expect therapy to look. It goes something like this: 

The words change, based on context and how the client speaks, but the overriding meaning is the same. Neither society nor I are the experts on what is best for the client. The role of the expert belongs solely to the client.
 
There is a saying in Narrative Therapy that “the person is not the problem, the problem is the problem” (Freeman et al., 1997, p. 8). This saying resonates with me. Something I see as part of the foundation from which problems for clients stem is that, as a society, we often blame people for things they do not have the tools or resources to control or do differently. This issue of blame is exasperated further as dominant discourse and other systemic forces working upon individuals are dismissed or ignored in favor of blaming the individual alone. Ironically, this scenario of placing impetus entirely on the individual, and ignoring the realities of systemic harm, actually robs those who are most vulnerable of their efficacy. This is part of why I believe that people are and should be the experts on who they are, on their own experiences, and should be validated as having the power to author their own stories and identities. To accomplish this, I draw most heavily from Michael White and David Epston’s (1990) Narrative Therapy framework, but I also incorporate aspects of Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg’s (1997) Solution-Focused Brief Therapy and the types of collaborative frameworks championed by Lynn Hoffman (2018).

Why Individuals, Couples, and Families Come to Therapy
The foundational scenario I believe leads to the majority of problems that cause an individual, couple, or family to seek out therapy is when an inaccurate narrative occurs. Inaccurate narratives are those which are not cohesive with the lived experiences of the individual, couple, family, or group. Inaccurate narratives cause problems for individuals, couples, and families because they create a dual narrative landscape that must be navigated. The individual, couple, or family must navigate existing in their lived experiences while being told and externally navigating their lives as if they exist in the inaccurate narrative landscape. I mentioned an example of an inaccurate narrative earlier, when an individual is made solely responsible for their actions despite the reality that institutional and systemic constraints make it difficult, if not impossible, to act differently. I believe that inaccurate narratives like that one create chronic incongruences which cause people to constantly invest more energy into navigating and maintaining them. This energy expenditure saps mental and emotional resources, leading to distress and disorder.

Narrative Hijacking
When I talk with clients about inaccurate narratives I often present the idea using the terminology of a hijacked narrative. We discuss that everyone has a story. Individuals have their own story, as so do couples, families, and other groupings like institutions, races, cultures, and more. There is a whole ecosystem of narratives out there, and each level has its very own story. 

Unfortunately, the stories which are told are not inherently accurate or truly reflective of those whom the stories are told about. It is natural that the first storytellers for each individual are their parents, their siblings, or other family members (e.g., grandparents). In a healthy family system, as the child grows and develops, they will take over more of their own storytelling and when they reach full development, they will have the majority of the authoring power for their own story. Problems can arise for the individual and the family when, for whatever reason, this transfer of storytelling doesn’t happen in a developmentally appropriate way. 

This developmental timeline is not the only way that narrative hijacking occurs and a hijacked narrative is not unique to the individual level of narratives. Couple narratives can be hijacked, so can family narratives, the narratives of groups (e.g., minority populations) and even the narratives of macrosystems like institutions or cultures. There are a variety of ways that external narrative hijacking happens and it occurs whenever someone other than the individual, couple, family, or group gets too much control over a narrative that is not theirs. 

Narrative hijacking can also occur from within the couple, family, or group, such as when one person is disproportionately authoring the story for everyone. For example, one partner can disproportionately control a couple’s narrative. This disproportional control causes distress for the couple around trying to simultaneously navigate their incongruent narrative landscapes, especially for the partner who lacks storytelling power. 

It is important to note that though most couples and families have a narrative spokesperson, this is not synonymous with the person who has the most authoring power in the couple or family. That is, the person who most often retells or discusses the narrative may not be the person who created it. As a result, sometimes what looks like an internally hijacked narrative is in reality an externally hijacked narrative that is being regurgitated by the narrative spokesperson.

In truth, the ability to hijack a narrative appears to be based on systems of power, which are often derived from society’s dominant discourse. Thus, children are vulnerable to having narratives hijacked by parents, students by teachers, congregants by pastors, and so forth. This phenomenon extends further for minority individuals. Minority groups are vulnerable to having their narratives hijacked by politicians and the political system (e.g., Black men by police officers and the criminal justice system, trans people by a mental health system that would label them disordered, poor people by those who have money, and more). Regardless of how narrative hijacking comes to exist, problems can arise for individuals, couples, and families whenever a narrative has been hijacked.

How Change Occurs in Therapy
As a precursor to discussing how change occurs in therapy, I would like to make it explicit that my theory about hijacked narratives causing an incongruence that leads to distress and disorder is not part of the Narrative Therapy framework as it was developed by Michael White and David Epston. I want to be clear that I am not representing it as such. Rather, hijacked narratives are part of my personal theoretical framework, which incorporates many key concepts from the Narrative Therapy model, like narrative landscapes and restorying. I believe that the reason Narrative Therapy is a powerful and effective model is that the interventions used in Narrative Therapy help clients become aware of their narratives. Further, Narrative Therapy inherently instills the belief that the client has the power to tell their own accurate stories, regardless of what story has been told for them up to that point. 

That said, my beliefs about how change occurs in therapy is largely congruent with Narrative Therapy. There are four important assumptions of Narrative Therapy that, from my perspective, must be recognized to understand and position how change occurs narratively:

Thus, the stories we tell determine how we make meaning about experiences, how we choose to express and present both our experiences and ourselves, and how we choose to live our lives and interact in our relationships. This leads me to the conclusion that the dominant necessary component of change is having the power to change the narrative, as changing the narrative in and of itself changes the system.

The Power to Change the Narrative
An individual having the power to change their narrative, to reauthor their story, is the only thing I believe is necessary for change. However, there are multiple considerations around that statement. In order to have the power to change the narrative the individual, couple, or family must believe they have the power to change the narrative. Further, it is difficult for anyone to focus on changing their narrative if basic needs are not met or if they do not have a sense of safety. This means that it is important for a therapist to ethically work with clients and engage in appropriate best practices. A therapist who is working with financially vulnerable clients should be assessing and referring for resources. A therapist who is working with trauma should be trauma-informed and able to recognize that unprocessed trauma can prevent a client from having the power to change their narrative. A therapist who is working with queer clients should have training in working with the LGBTQ+ population. A therapist who is working with racial and ethnic minorities should practice cultural competence. This type of “attending to the larger system” and context has been a hallmark of systemic and family therapy from the beginning through to today (Lebow, 2021), and I believe will continue to be important in the future both in systemic therapy in general and in my own model of therapy.

Lastly, in no way should the idea of changing the narrative be taken to mean that minority and vulnerable individuals, couples, and families have the ability to alter a narrative to not include facing personal or systemic violence, prejudice, or discrimination. That would be both engaging in victim-blaming and a gross misrepresentation of what changing a narrative means. Narrative Therapy was, in more than a small part, developed around the concepts of recognizing the effect that systems of power and dominant discourse have on vulnerable individuals. Reauthoring the narrative does not mean overwriting injustice. In fact, it is often quite the opposite. Many hijacked narratives are told in order to ignore or excuse injustices perpetrated against the story’s main character (the individual, couple, or family) and to cast the main character as the problem instead. Narrative Therapy is about the client having the control to tell an accurate narrative, one that recognizes that the injustices or other issues are the actual problems, not the individual, couple, or family.

Changing the Narrative Changes the System
It has been my experience that the bulk of therapy is getting to the point where the client has the power to change the narrative. Once a client has the power to take control as the dominant author of their narrative, therapy moves along quickly. As the client unjacks their hijacked narrative, they stop having to interact with the world through the lens of the inaccurate narrative and are able to draw on their accurate narrative for both meaning and decision-making. As they enact their accurate narrative it is witnessed by those around them and inherently changes the system they are within. That is not to say that there will not be push-back or invitations to accept their previous hijacked narrative back. However, with therapeutic work and support, the client can persevere until the system has restructured around their accurate narrative. 

It should be stated here that while this micro-level systemic change a client can enact is important and meaningful, greater change must occur by macro-level inaccurate narratives being reauthored. Therapy is not and, in my belief, cannot be a fix-all for systemic oppression, inequity, or issues that stem from those characters who take advantage of extreme imbalances of power. I believe that having an accurate narrative can help relieve some of the distress caused by these situations. Still, it cannot fix the more significant systemic issues that are active without a higher-level narrative reauthoring. For example, a child who is in an abusive situation having a narrative that accurately reflects that reality (something which abused children often do not get to have as part of their explicit narrative) does not remove them from the situation. The same is true for the systemic oppression faced by minority groups. Not having to navigate, at the individual level, inaccurate narratives that are systemic in nature can relieve some of the distress experienced as a result of that macro-level inaccurate narrative. A reauthoring of the macro-level narrative at the systemic level would be needed for a more complete fix.