Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy 2018, 39, 21–37

doi: 10.1002/anzf.1283

‘What Was I Thinking?!’ Rhetorical

Questions as a Technique to Identify and
Explore Impasses in Therapy
Carmen Garcıa Perez de Le
on
Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London

Rhetorical questions emerging spontaneously in consultations can be used as a tool for developing self-reflexivity
and exploring the therapeutic alliance in the process of therapy with couples and families. This paper presents a
technique based on the enunciation of rhetorical questions, which can point to an impasse in the process of ther-
apy and contain a key to its resolution. The technique focuses on the distinctive feature of rhetorical questions as
convening a paradoxical injunction: a question not intended as a question, while uttered as such. The technique
in four steps is illustrated by examples from therapy, supervision, consultation, and self-supervision. Its focus is the
interlink between the therapeutic relationship and the process of therapy and it is informed by a second-order
cybernetics approach, dialogical practice, and the systemic literature on emotion. The technique can help develop
curiosity in working with families, lead to unforeseen developments, and touch on prejudices not made explicit in
previous therapeutic encounters. Whether we are acting as supervisors, therapists, or clients, the creation of a ‘se-
cure enough’ context for rhetorical questions becomes critical to allow freeform exploration.

Keywords: dialectic process, emotion, metacommunication, rhetorical questions, self-reflexivity, supervision, thera-
peutic relationship

Key Points

1 Impasses in relational processes can be expressed in the form of rhetorical questions uttered during super-
vision or in therapy sessions with individuals, couples, or families.
2 The technique focuses on the distinctive feature of rhetorical questions as convening a paradoxical injunc-
tion: a question not intended as a question, while uttered as such.
3 The protocolled and simple structure of the technique allows it to be applied widely in therapy and super-
visory contexts.
4 Supervision and therapy contexts are particularly indicated for an open exploration which would disregard
the meta-communication carried by the rhetorical question.
5 The ethical implications of disregarding socially established rules are considered with attention to responsi-
bility for the process of the conversation in such settings.

Introduction: Questioning the Certainties Enclosed in Rhetorical Questions

“What was I thinking?,” “What are they like?,” “What is he worried about?,” “How did
that happen?,” “Who cares?,” “What does it matter?,” “What did I do that for?”
Rhetorical questions like the ones above emerge often spontaneously in consultations,
whether these take place in supervision or in the context of therapy with couples or
families.

Address for correspondence: carmen.garcia@kcl.ac.uk

ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy 21

 rez de Leo
Carmen Garcıa Pe n

These questions that have more the flavour of an exclamation or an assertion, are
nonetheless uttered as questions. In other words, rhetorical questions carry a seem-
ingly paradoxical metacommunication; the message itself is delivered with information
as to how to interpret the message: that the question is not to be taken as a question.
In this paper I propose that such questions alert us to a metacommunication
that may be worth exploring through a technical protocol. Such exploration may
elicit new information about the context in which those questions are uttered and
open possibilities for second-order change. Second order, because the changes would
be in the very process of therapy or the way relationships in that context are organ-
ised or understood. Thus, the technique presented here, which proposes decon-
structing and utilising rhetorical questions, fits with a historical interest in questions
as interventive tools within systemic family therapy (McGee, Vento, & Bavelas,
2005; Penn, 1982; Selvini Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1980; Tomm,
1987a, 1987b, 1988).

The specific metacommunication that makes a question rhetorical

Rhetorical questions are defined normally as questions that do not require an answer,
or which the answer – in the case of close-ended yes/no questions – is contained in
the very question (Han, 2002). How questions can be identified as rhetorical has been
studied with attention to the question’s logical structure as well as pragmatics of com-
munication (Bhattasali, Cytryn, Feldman, & Park, 2015; Green, 1989; Gutierrez Rex-
ach, 1998; Han, 2001; Reissland, 1998), whether in the inner or outer dialogues we
engage in (Fishelov, 2013; Lidbom et al., 2015). Research on the use of language in
conversations amongst family members has shown that in a conversational context
even pre-school-aged children can understand the rhetorical aspect of a question (Rec-
chia, Howe, & Ross, 2010; Reissland, 1998).
Additionally, rhetorical questions feature in different languages with different
grammar structures, and a diversity of script-writing systems (Sprouse, 2007),1 per-
haps indicating something about the relational nature of language. Indeed, a relational
perspective would consider the response such questions intend to elicit: that the ques-
tion was not enounced wanting an answer but rather a confirming response, or at
least an end to argumentation. Therefore, rather than questioning, they tell something
about the certainties of the speaker. Moreover, because the certainties of the speaker
are tightly packed in a question, the speaker’s assumptions about the issue ‘in ques-
tion’ can remain unexamined.

Answering rhetorical questions?!

The question mark of rhetorical questions could easily be exchanged with an exclama-
tion mark but rhetorical questions are nonetheless punctuated as questions. What
would happen if we heeded further to the fact that, though they are not enounced
or perceived as questions, they are nonetheless formulated as questions? And, accept-
ing that the question is indeed understood as rhetorical by speakers, what circum-
stances would make it possible to overlook the meta-message and attempt to answer
the question? Restating a rhetorical question would provoke some sense of awkward-
ness as we would disregard a time-honoured cultural pattern or norm: rhetorical ques-
tions are not meant to be answered. That sense of confusion, though, could open the
possibility for new understandings enclosed in the exclamation if/as we attempt to
understand further, once the certainty enclosed in the question is questioned.

22 ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy

 What Was I Thinking?!

The technique discussed in this paper is an invitation to disregard the meta-mes-

sage carried in the tone of the speaker and take the question at face value, that is as a
real question. As a technique it is an action that allows for replication across contexts,
and adaptation to the particular context of application. In the following pages I
intend to illustrate how turning rhetorical questions into questions proper can be a
tool for resolving impasses in therapy and supervision, with some pertinent adapta-
tions. I will describe the technique in a stepped fashion, and will illustrate its applica-
tion in the contexts of therapy, consultation, training supervision, and self-
supervision. Correspondingly, I will explore the theoretical approach informing the
technique and the ethical implications of its use in therapy and supervision.

Steps and Rationale for Applying Rhetorical Questions as a Technique

Steps to convert a rhetorical question in a tool to identify and resolve impasses in therapy

Step 1: Identifying the question

Step 2: Explaining the rationale for implementing the technique
Step 3: Re-enouncing the question and exploring possible answers and further questions
Step 4: Connecting back to the process of therapy in terms of further possibilities for
action

Settings for application

The technique can be implemented in the course of consultative supervision, in pre-
or post-session discussions during live training supervision, or during a video review.
It can also be practiced in self-supervision, peer supervision, and training supervision.
Additionally, it can be applied in therapy with individual clients, couples, or families.

Step 1: Identifying the question

As the supervisee or client describes the experience, her or his ideas or questions etc.,
the supervisor pays attention to the quality of some questions, with particular atten-
tion to the nonverbal language and emphasis placed through bodily changes (i.e.,
change of posture, raising voice, muscular tension, pupil dilatation, blushing, etc.).

Step 2: Explaining the rationale for implementing the technique

The following script is an example of how we could invite clients or supervisees to
use this technique:
I noticed that the question you just asked was perhaps not meant to be answered, what
we call a rhetorical question. There is a technique consisting of attempting answers to
this kind of questions, especially if we utter them when discussing an impasse or
expressing perplexity about something emerging in therapy. It could be something
important as I am assuming from the emphasis you placed on it. If there was some-
thing that intuitively connects with the themes we are exploring would you be inter-
ested in addressing your (rhetorical) question as a question? However, if in the course
of this exploration you feel uncomfortable and prefer to stop, we can leave it there.

ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy 23

 rez de Leo
Carmen Garcıa Pe n

Similarly, it is not only fine but also advisable to pass, if you prefer to leave the ques-
tion as it is, that is, rhetorical.
It is critical that the person is offered the possibility to opt out, especially if reluctance
is expressed explicitly, through doubt or asking many questions about the technique.
A possibility is to leave it for the person (supervisee or clients) to re-propose it at a
later point, only if they think it might be useful.

Step 3: Re-enouncing the question

After explaining the intent and inviting the therapist/client to try the tool out, an
exploration starts by simply re-enouncing the question as a question. After the invita-
tion the technique can start with a statement along the lines:
So, to return to the rhetorical question, if you just ask it again as a question and not as
an exclamation, what might you understand differently about the family/the family
members?
Or about how they come to therapy?
Or about your mutual responses in sessions?
Or about their relationship to help?
(Fredman & Reder, 1996)
Further questions to continue the conversation while focusing on the therapeutic rela-
tionship could be:
In terms of how you feel about this, have you ever felt similarly in other relational con-
texts?
How do these contexts connect with the context of your work with this/these client/s?
What does that question tell about the common ground or the fit that is developing
between you and the family/family members?
If there was a value that is held in common between all of you, while from different
perspectives and differently enacted, what would that value be?

Step 4: Connecting back to the process of therapy in terms of further possibilities for
action
The ensuing exploration can be guided connecting the reflections with new possibili-
ties for action opened through the new understandings created in the conversation.
Thus, the technique can be implemented as a tool for both resolving and utilising
impasses in the process of therapy, possibly associated with the interweaving of emo-
tional experiences and value judgements in the context of the therapeutic relationship.
This technique can be used as well to promote greater curiosity (Cecchin, 1987),
that is, as a way to explore certainties which could preclude further development of
dialogue or hypothesising, or preventing the therapy to become a context for change.
This would entail bringing to surface the therapist’s prejudices that may organise how
she or he observes and makes sense (Cecchin, Ray, & Lane, 1994), not in a compre-
hensive or exhaustive way, but just attending to those emerging in the relationship
that unfolds between the therapist and the family. For example, in the following vign-
ette, I describe a supervision scenario where the therapist exclaimed, ‘What are they
like?!’ as a response to the clients’ behaviour in the context of therapy. This rhetorical

24 ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy

 What Was I Thinking?!

question could be re-proposed as a genuine question: What are they like for you? In
your encounters, what sense do you get about their values, what is most important to them,
that could help us make sense of how they come to sessions? What is your own view on
that issue?

A Vignette to Illustrate the Tool’s Application in Training Supervision

I was supervising a trainee completing the last year of her MSc in family therapy. She
had been working with a family where the parents were considering whether to
divorce and were concerned about the impact that decision might have on their two
daughters, both of whom had a diagnosed learning disability. The therapist had met
the family three times. In their conversations it appeared that the children were aware
that their parents were considering separating. Indeed, they spoke openly about how
their parents were living separately at home. The therapist then considered that meet-
ing the parents on their own could offer an opportunity to discuss their concerns
about whatever they would decide to do as a couple. Yet, even though from that invi-
tation the therapist expected to meet the couple on their own, they continued to
bring the children to the joint sessions. A pattern developed in which the therapist
expected to see them without the children and each time they attended with them,
without giving any signs that they were aware of the therapist’s invitation to attend as
a couple.

Step 1: Identifying the question

On one of those occasions, while we were discussing ideas for a session arranged with
the couple, we were told that the family had arrived for the appointment. The thera-
pist blushed slightly and exclaimed, ‘What are they like!?’

Step 2: Explaining the rationale for implementing the technique

At that moment, noticing the bodily emphasis placed on the question which the trai-
nee was ready to dismiss straight away, I invited her to heed her emotional response
and take her own question seriously. Then we explored her understanding of the cou-
ple’s dilemmas in connection with the question they brought to therapy and how they
continued to come with the children. Their decision to separate or not was up to
them, even though it would impact the family’s life significantly. They wanted the
children to have a voice and were advocating for their daughters without ascribing to
them responsibility for the parents’ decision. We were stuck in the net of possibilities
that a decision could both foreclose and generate.

Step 3: Re-enouncing the question to start an exploration

Exploring her own question: ‘What are they like?’ she became aware of the value
judgement it expressed. What did it tell about them that they kept coming with the
children? What did it tell about the values they held, what was at stake in involving
or not involving the children in conversations about the couple?

Step 4: Connecting back to the process of therapy in terms of possible further actions
What were they like in relation to the therapist? What did the on-going disregard of
her request to attend on their own tell the therapist about how they saw her or her
role? What hypotheses did the therapist have about what was expressed through that

ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy 25

 rez de Leo
Carmen Garcıa Pe n

behaviour about the relationship they were forming? Perhaps it was a way to slow
down the process until they felt ready to move on. How would that process change if
the therapist acknowledged that she and the family were still in the process of form-
ing a secure base to explore difficulties? Coming with the children guaranteed, then,
that all would be cautious not to tread dangerous territories in their explorations. The
therapist could connect empathically with that sense of frustration and with the diffi-
culties of sharing responsibility for a decision that is yet to be made.
On this reflection, she decided not to insist on the invitation and to ask about
other areas important for the children to talk about as a family that had not been
looked at yet. The therapist then met with the family and subsequently held a few
sessions, which only the parents attended, until they agreed to end the therapy. They
decided to separate. After having persisted in her invitation, the therapist stopped ask-
ing the couple to come without the children. From that moment the couple became
ready to come without their children.2
The therapist let her ideas go in favour of attending to what may emerge in con-
versations that she was not paying attention to because she was focusing on the cou-
ple subsystem. She engaged with her own sense of curiosity about what she would
notice if she moved her attention outside the issue of the couple attending on their
own. In doing this her ‘emotional posture’ (Fredman, 2004; Griffith & Elliott Grif-
fith, 1994) changed from one in which she intended to shift the couple’s responses to
one in which she wanted to understand the couple’s responses, perhaps letting go a
prejudice (Cecchin et al., 1994), that it was her responsibility as a therapist rather
than a shared responsibility, to decide who could most usefully attend sessions and
what the focus of these would be. Correspondingly, I could not absorb the responsi-
bility for that decision by instructing her to either insist or let go the issue of who
attended sessions. As a supervisor, in encouraging her to take her own question seri-
ously, with my own sense of curiosity, I invited her to become curious about the
rhetorical question, as indeed a question to which possible answers could mobilise
resources of the therapist in her interactions with the family.

Ethical Considerations for a Constructive Application of this Protocol

As power differentials can organise what is possible to include and exclude in any
given conversation, whether we are using this tool from the position of the therapist
or the supervisor, there are a few points to attend to for the technique to have a con-
structive effect. Indeed, taking a relational perspective means considering the specific
relationship of the persons in conversation and how their mutual roles or positions
are defined in that context. The extent to which each speaker participates in deciding
who can say what to whom, what is possible to say, and how it is possible to talk in
that conversation, all denote power differentials organising the relationship. These dif-
ferences are also defined by rules in the wider contexts of that conversation. For
example, I may use a rhetorical question when talking with a friend that I may not
use when talking with a teacher. My choice would depend on the quality of each rela-
tionship in addition to cultural rules defining these relationships more generally.
To continue with the example, if my friend proposed looking at that rhetorical
question as a question – as the current paper is proposing – I would probably feel freer
in my choice to accept or dismiss that invitation than if this was happening in the con-
text of therapy or supervision. In the latter case, I might assume that it is more

26 ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy

 What Was I Thinking?!

plausible for me to accept it than not, as I might be more inclined to fulfil the thera-
pist’s or the supervisor’s explicit expectations. Nonetheless, it is also possible that, while
I accept the invitation at one level , at another level I might still refuse it, by limiting
my participation (consciously or unconsciously). The technique may not be as genera-
tive or useful in resolving any given impasse than if I accepted it without reservations.
Then again, it might be important for me to have reservations so that I can engage
with a sense of responsibility about what might happen to me if I enter that territory,
rather than relying on the therapist or the supervisor to take on that responsibility uni-
laterally. It may also be that I drop my initial reluctance or, conversely, that it gets
reinforced, when I start to have a sense of what the conversation is generating.
Discussing the nuances of the distribution of responsibility in interactions is
beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is a critical point which needs to be con-
sidered for the implementation of the technique. Suffice to say that regardless of the
power differential ascribed to a supervisor or therapist, if the relationship is not secure
enough (Byng-Hall, 1995a), the kind of exploration this paper proposes cannot take
place. Ultimately, it is a question of trust rather than certainty, trust in our clients’
and supervisees’ ‘protections,’ which we need to respect.

Specific Contexts for Using Rhetorical Questions: Therapy and Supervision

There is a sound body of research supporting the notion that the therapeutic relation-
ship is a significant factor for the outcome of the therapy process in individual, fam-
ily, or group formats and across a variety of psychotherapy models and approaches
(Bordin, 1979; Carr, 2005; Escudero, Friedlander, Varela, & Abascal, 2008; Horvath
& Symonds, 1991; Hubble, Duncan, & Miller, 1999; Pinsof, 1994; Symonds &
Horvath, 2004). There has also been growing attention to the therapeutic alliance in
training and supervisory contexts (Carpenter, Escudero, & Rivett, 2008; Kaslow,
Celano, & Stanton, 2005; Street, 1997). In agreement with this research, the use of
this tool in supervision should focus on the relationship between the therapist and
family members or the therapist-and-family system. Conversely, the quality of the
supervisory relationship is a critical context for its implementation.
If we understand the supervisory space as promoting a different vision (Fruggeri,
2014), this could be a context in which it is ‘permitted’ to overlook or, rather, look
differently at the societal discourses which organise the rules about how to make sense
and respond to rhetorical questions. This is by virtue of creating and attending to the
on-going construction of a space that is secure enough (Byng-Hall, 1995a) to suspend
judgement momentarily, even about the prejudices held by supervisees and supervisors
about how we should relate to clients or how we should feel about them (Bertrando,
2015; Cecchin & Ray, 1994). This is so we can examine our own subconsciously
held (as in outside or our immediate conscious awareness) prejudices about what fam-
ilies present in therapy. However, being mindful about safety in the relationship
should not organise it in a way that could prevent the very creative process that super-
vision, or therapy, are meant to foster. I am talking about the distinction between
safety and security, where security provides a base to attempt different actions or
adopt different viewpoints. Building a secure base for the implementation of the tech-
nique would also involve relational risk-taking as, ‘our work as supervisors of therapy
involves taking risks interpersonally, as part of the process of finding positions of safe
uncertainty and authoritative doubt’ (Mason, 2005).

ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy 27

 rez de Leo
Carmen Garcıa Pe n

In the case of supervision, the rhetorical question emerges in the experience of

talking about the family and the process of therapy. It, therefore, must be informed
by something happening uniquely in that relational context; it says something about
the other (the family), that is elicited in us (the therapist) when we meet. According
to the biologist Maturana (1980, 2002; Leyland, 1988), living systems are autopoietic.
That is to say, each constructs itself autonomously in the way it lives and develops,
and each living system’s development is limited to the change that the system can
undergo without compromising the structure of the system itself. In other words, a
cat cannot develop skills to eventually be able to fly. However, if two or more living
systems are structurally coupled, that is, find an area of fit between them, then their
responses would be coordinated as they would mutually influence one another, form-
ing a new relational system with its own organisation.
Thus, change can be conceptualised as a creative process which is limited, or
defined, by its very structure. This implies, as well, that it is impossible to direct
change in others, a notion referred to as the impossibility of instructional interaction
(Kenny & Gardner, 1988). I will draw from this notion of how change happens in
the context of interactions and more specifically in the contexts of therapy and of
education (Murray, 1994; Poerksen & Maturana, 2006), to analyse the process that
the technique sits on.
There are times in the forming of their relationship when therapists and clients
can enter a competition about defining the terms of the relationship itself. This is,
perhaps, what Griffith and Elliott Griffith (1994) identified as emotional postures of
mobilisation which can lead to, stem from, or perpetuate, impasses or closed circuits
of interaction. Rhetorical questions emerging in a conversation about the impasse, or
other perplexities emerging in therapy, reflect something about that fit that is created
between therapist and families as they enter and form a relationship. Taking them as
questions can open an exploration of the values held by therapist and family that are
informing what they do together or what changes can take place through their joint
work.
We can also view the development of the therapeutic alliance as a dialectic process,
where the polarisations emerging in it (right/wrong, good/bad, victim/perpetrator
etc.) are resolved in a context that allows holding both polarised perspectives without
necessarily merging them. In other words, understanding the poles as being in a rela-
tionship of both contrast and mutual definition and, hence, more connected than sep-
arate: in their fit they define one another (Fruggeri, 2014).

Emotional Processes Connected with Rhetorical Questions and Considerations for

Delivering the Technique
When the therapist finds herself or himself opposing the family’s view or feeling
strongly about something they are bringing, it is likely to involve a polarised position
in respect to a particular theme, which can often be outside the family’s and the ther-
apist’s conscious awareness. The theme might be, but not the emotions it elicits.
When used in consultation about an impasse in therapy, the rhetorical question can
point at a blind spot, something that organises our responses while we are not aware
of what is organising them, for both the therapist and the family. This ‘blind spot’
can refer to a shared judgement about how each enters the relationship or what the
relationship is for, or what defines it.

28 ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy

 What Was I Thinking?!

Returning to the previous vignette, there are many possible explanations as to

what enabled the shift or how the issue of who would attend sessions changed.
Nonetheless, this could illustrate the process of fitting that takes place between thera-
pists and clients around the themes emerging in therapy, which can often be outside
the conscious awareness of those involved, in that it connects with subconsciously
held values. The therapist and the parents shared a value about the boundaries
between the couple relationship and their relationship with the children, alongside a
belief that children’s views and voices are important in a cultural context where for-
mer generations went by the saying ‘children are to be seen but not heard.’ It was
because they held similar values, rather than diverging ones, that the impasse may
have taken place: the couple was concerned about the impact of their relationship on
their children. The therapist was inviting them to draw a boundary between these
two relational domains. However, until this was somehow opened up through the
exploration of that emphatically enounced rhetorical question, they remained ‘stuck’
in their mutually held belief about the importance of children’s views in family deci-
sion making, alongside a belief that the couple’s intimate relationship was not to be
discussed with the children.
At another level the experience of the therapist resembled structurally the experi-
ence described by the parents: a sense of frustration about something you expect
would happen that doesn’t get to happen. An impasse, a couple considering whether
they can or want to continue as a couple. A therapist inviting them to come as a cou-
ple through a request they made as parents. That was the common ground formed
between the family members and the therapist. In that very common ground, the
therapist developed some tolerance for the situation of impasse. When the expectation
was dissolved, the apparent stasis reached was no longer problematic but accepted as
something that perhaps needed to be understood and not only shifted or pushed for-
ward (where to?). The anxiety about the need to resolve the problem was reduced
contributing to building a sense of psychological safety in the context of therapy
(Escudero et al., 2008). This may have enhanced the participants’ ability to take risks
to do something different within that space. A stance of collaboration follows from
this view which is also reflected in the inclusion in the protocol of the possibility to
refuse participation without having to give explanations, while validating that decision
(see Step 2).
Additionally, it is critical that the supervisor or therapist be mindful of the
intent in proposing the exploration of the rhetorical question. It has to be pro-
posed and implemented without a corrective intent, without the intention to shift
the client, student or supervisee towards a particular take. Rather, the focus is
brought to the rhetorical question uttered, as telling something about the fit
between the supervisee and the family in the case of a supervision consultation, or
about the themes brought for therapy in the case of a therapy session. In the case
of supervision, the question can indicate something about the developing therapeu-
tic alliance, something to do with its quality but which refers more to its symbolic
contents.
For example, in the course of a consultation, a couples’ therapist expressed her
frustration about a client’s continued access to pornography. The client’s wife had
requested couples therapy because she was concerned about the impact of this beha-
viour on their relationship. ‘Does he have to continue watching porn?!’ the therapist
exclaimed. As we paused to take the question as a question, the first thing she could

ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy 29

 rez de Leo
Carmen Garcıa Pe n

identify was the emotion with which that question came. We explored further that
‘have to’: Did he have to continue doing something that was putting at risk this cou-
ple’s relationship? How was this couple’s relationship? What was there about it that
needed to be put at risk or questioned? If we took that ‘have to’ as denoting necessity,
what other things did he have to do in the context of the couple’s relationship? She
thought the wife was mandating him to attend couples therapy, as a way to show that
he was willing to change this behaviour which was seen as a fault; if he did not
attend, she would have broken up the relationship. The therapist could then see how
she had not wondered about how he was being invited to therapy, as she had aligned
with the wife’s reasons for the couple to attend therapy: to get him to change his
behaviour, rather than focusing on the difficulties that they were finding in their rela-
tionship. The therapist could also identify some resemblance between the dilemma
this couple was bringing to therapy and past personal experiences which she was
aware of, but that she had not explored further. She decided to become more curious
about what he was expressing in the relationship through this behaviour. She thought
this was possible to understand, symbolically, as some sort of complaint he was mak-
ing about how the power to define the terms of their relationship was negotiated
within the couple. As she made this connection she could also see how she had read-
ily aligned with the rationale to attend therapy to change one partner’s behaviour,
without paying attention to the other partner’s behaviour. Her frustration with the
persistence of that behaviour, expressed in the exclamation, ‘Does he have to continue
watching porn?!’ also conveyed something about the developing relationship between
the therapist and the couple.
The continuation of the behaviour that the therapy (or the therapist) was assigned
to change, disqualified in some way the therapist as a competent professional. Hence,
her position resembled structurally the position of the wife who felt disqualified as a
sexual partner by her husband’s use of pornography. On the other hand, like the hus-
band, she was being mandated, without negotiation, to work on a particular outcome.
Like the husband, she had not questioned this instruction further but became stuck
between wanting to comply and not being able to comply. Exploring that rhetorical
question opened a number of options for the therapist, but most importantly, it
allowed her to realise that she had conformed with a lineal understanding of the ther-
apy process. This ascribes to the therapist unilateral power to influence the other and,
hence, responsibility to shift the client’s behaviour without considering what is influ-
encing the therapist’s behaviour in that context.

Embodied and Expressed Emotion as Analogical Communication About the Issue to

Which the Rhetorical Question Refers
The technique proposed in this paper draws from a systemic conceptualisation of the
emotional experience as both embodied (experienced physically) and embedded in
relationships and the discourses (verbal expressions) that shape our understanding of
emotions in the wider social contexts we inhabit. This paper conceptualises emotions
and their expression as connected recursively in the emotional experience, which com-
prises both the occurrence of emotion in my body (the feeling) and its noticeability
for others in our interactions, locating the emotion also in the relational space.
In addition to the metacommunication that characterises rhetorical questions, these
can be further understood in the light of the analogical communication which they

30 ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy

 What Was I Thinking?!

also carry: the tone and volume of voice, bodily posture, gesticulations, etc. Emphati-
cally enounced, that is, with accentuated emotional expression that reflects in the
speaker’s physiognomy – for example, blushing or increased muscular tension – these
rhetorical questions are more likely to emerge in situations associated with impasses
in the therapeutic process, frustrated attempts to understand something that nonethe-
less appears important to the therapist, or holding some dissatisfaction with one’s
own certainty because, convinced as one may be, one can also see that it leads to
some sort of dead end in the process of therapy.
It is important that the supervisor or the therapist brings attention to such ques-
tions, because rhetorical questions, by the way they are formulated – not being origi-
nally intended or understood as questions – can get passed very easily in the stream
of discourse. Additionally, they tend to reflect dominant discourses (Hare-Mustin,
1994; Madigan, 1992; Markham & Chiu, 2011; White & Epston, 1990) in the
wider socio-cultural context, which makes them more unnoticeable as they do not
seem to contain ‘news of a difference’ (Bateson, 1972) or sufficient difference to put
those discourses in question.
As noted earlier it is critical to be mindful about the degree of psychological safety
within the relationship, be it therapeutic, supervisory, or consultative, since through
this exploration we are entering a zone of moral judgement (the therapist’s, the fam-
ily’s, the supervisor’s, and the communities we belong in) and open exploration can
be very difficult, if not impossible, in the face of perceived, or anticipated, or actual
negative judgement.

Illustration of the Technique in Therapy

The intent of the technique presented here is to open the question that appears closed
by its rhetoric enunciation. The rationale is that the question could potentially con-
tain information about the particular process being discussed, perhaps uttered in the
context of a conversation about an impasse or a perplexity about the therapy process.
In the case of therapy, the question might indicate an impasse in a significant rela-
tionship.

Step 1: Identifying the question

For example, during a session with two parents, the mother exclaimed: ‘Why do I
have to have a child who I cannot like!?’ She could not immediately make sense of
this other than her frustration about the quality of her relationship with her son. I
understood it in the context of her own description of her relationship with her
mother, where she felt loved insofar as she appeared to fulfil her mother’s expectations
of what a good child is. As she described it, her mother showed low tolerance for her
mood if it seemed low, quiet, or pensive.

Step 2: Explaining the rationale for implementing the technique

I proposed that the dilemma she had as a child was re-proposed to her, this time
around, from her position as a parent. It seemed as though in her explicit attempt to
correct a script about parent–child relationships (Byng-Hall, 1995b) she was also
replicating it. The replication though was not explicit or intentional. There was some-
thing in that rhetorical question that indicated where she was getting stuck or what
needed to be resolved.

ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy 31

 rez de Leo
Carmen Garcıa Pe n

Step 3: Re-enouncing the question

I shared with her, based on that exclamation, that if taken as a question, a possible
answer could be that she had to be in that situation as a parent because correcting her
mother’s parenting was made impossible by the actual replication in her emotional
experience of the relationship with her child. In other words, forcing herself to just
like her son, when that was not her actual emotional (or aesthetical) experience,
resembled her mother’s attempts to correct her emotional experience when she criti-
cised her for being ‘moody, melancholic, gloomy.’

Step 4: Connecting back to the process of therapy in terms of further possibilities for
action
Rather than looking to educate her son to be more like she would like him to be, or
to torment herself for not loving her son unconditionally as a parent, she could accept
the child as the person who is becoming, which, perhaps, also required her to accept
herself as the person she is, and is continually becoming. Paradoxically, change would
come only when no change was sought. From that exploration, she started to enjoy
moments with her son without forcing herself to like things she did not like, and not
becoming despondent when he did not enjoy the same things she would. Moreover,
she surprised herself liking things about him that had been outside of her awareness
before.3

An Example in Self-supervision: ‘What Was I Thinking?!,’ ‘Why to Write at All?!’

Using the tool for self-supervision would require paying attention to our inner dia-
logue, not in terms of the content as much as the emphasis and tone used when
we speak to ourselves, which we can easily overlook. The point is to be mindful
that that internal voice can be taken as a dialogue, rather than the monologue
which we seldom challenge in our inner conversations. The benefits of an internal
dialogue would be to insert counterpoints in our own thinking while paying
attention to the emotions our inner conversations arouse in us and how these might
correspond to the nonverbal aspects of our inner communication. Are we silently
shouting at ourselves or smooth-talking us into something? Whose voices have we
incorporated as our inner voices? What does that tell us about the contexts we
may be drawing from in making sense of our current experience? These are ques-
tions that can guide us when implementing the technique for self-supervision or
self-therapy.

Step 1: Identifying the question

As I struggle in the process of writing this paper, two questions have emerged in my
inner dialogue. ‘What was I thinking!?’ and ‘Why to write at all?!’ Exploring these
questions together as questions, and not only as expressions of an emotional turmoil,
have guided the process of writing this paper.

Step 2: Explaining the rationale for implementing the technique

This step can be skipped in self-supervision, although some might find it useful to
reconnect with the idea that exploring this question might lead somewhere interesting
out of the impasse.

32 ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy

 What Was I Thinking?!

Step 3: Re-enouncing the question as a question

Attempting to reply to that rhetorical question ‘What was I thinking?’ has allowed
me to connect the intuitive act when I first proposed to take a rhetorical question as
a question, with the theoretical concepts that seem to guide my therapeutic and
supervisory practice. I have been implementing this kind of exploration ad hoc with-
out holding it consciously in a comprehensive framework. However, the development
of dialogical approaches (Bertrando, 2007; Rober, 2005; Seikkula, 2011), the on-
going interest in emotional systems (Bertrando, 2015; Fredman, 2004), and research
developments on the therapeutic alliance in family therapy (Escudero et al., 2008)
offer possible explanatory frameworks for the seeming usefulness of opening otherwise
closed rhetorical questions, through a technical exploration to help therapists resolve
impasses in the therapy process.
I have also realised that the very act of writing this paper connects with a personal
developmental impasse: I have been considering whether to write for publication for
years but always stopped myself with inner rhetorical questions: ‘What do you have
to say that hasn’t been told yet?,’ ‘Where does this will to write come from?,’ ‘Do
you really have to write?’ These exclamations carried painful judgements about the
value of my thinking alongside exposing it to others’ judgement by making it public.
Yet, this dilemma does not connect only with a need to feel accepted or the psycho-
logical sense of security that one has when that acceptance is not under question. A
historic and familial background whereby being recognised publicly as someone who
thinks is dangerous, let alone thinks differently, is contained in that judgement. What
I realise I was neglecting, my ‘blind spot,’ was that in that psychological and historical
backdrop, besides the inhibition it prompted, was an invitation. That very experience
was also inviting the courage and the necessity to keep discussing ideas even if they
are not new, even if they will be refuted, so that a diversity of viewpoints would not
be silenced, or forgotten. Perhaps this can explain why, while the rhetorical questions
could stop me from writing, at the same time left that possibility open, because they
were questions as well as assertions.

Step 4: Connecting back to the process under focus, in terms of further possibilities for
action
Perhaps the value of repeating is in the continuity of those ideas across different his-
toric contexts. Perhaps the value of having ideas refuted is that the refutation would
keep the ideas developing, rather than shutting them down. Perhaps this is what my
interest in paradox and dialectic processes have yet to reveal to me: that the judge-
ment feared can be taken as an invitation to both continue questioning and re-pro-
pose ideas, not as definite truths but under the guise of questions, to keep them alive
through the possibility of changing them. More than a passive acceptance or active
rejection of any particular thought, is what we are receptive to and what we struggle
with what keeps our thinking developing, so that we can re-propose ‘old’ ideas for
their validity in current contexts.

Conclusion
In line with a historic interest in questions within systemic approaches to therapy, I
have proposed a technique that draws from a notion of questions as interventive tools
to promote the continuation of change during impasses (McGee & Vento, 2005;

ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy 33

 rez de Leo
Carmen Garcıa Pe n

Penn, 1982; Selvini Palazzoli et al., 1980; Tomm, 1987a, 1987b, 1988). Its proto-
colled and simple structure allows a wide application in therapy and supervisory con-
texts, as it admits considerable adaptation. I hope to have demonstrated this point
with the practice examples and vignettes.
From the current focus on systemic understandings of emotions the technique
reconnects with a historic interest in metacommunication and analogical communica-
tion. It also highlights the interconnection between the therapist’s ethical stance
informing her value judgements and her emotional experience in the therapy process.
I have intended to highlight the value of systemic conceptualisations of the process of
change and the therapeutic and supervisory relationships, which provide a framework
to guide our efforts to understand such processes.

Notes
1
I have considered the question whether rhetorical questions are universal – featured in every language –
which would imply that this technique could also be implemented when working cross-culturally. So
far, I haven’t found a language strange to the use of rhetorical questions. Sprouse (2007) has identified
differences across languages in rhetorical questions’ syntactic structures. Nonetheless, the use of ques-
tions to assert something defines a question as rhetorical in a considerable variety of languages. If this
is a universal feature of human communication, perhaps linked to the fact the metacommunication
about the question – that it is not to be answered as ‘real’ questions are – then this technique can be
used in contexts where the culture (expressed in language and use of language) of the interlocutors is
different, yet the use and understanding of what is a rhetorical question is common. Thus, my query
was motivated not so much because of the language difference and the nuances of translation but
because of the metacommunication that indicates that the question is a rhetorical one: the idea that
certainties can be expressed as questions that, paradoxically, can be understood as assertions not to be
questioned. Indeed, analysing rhetorical questions in their relational contexts, we find that these happen
across different languages and, presumably, are also used by people of different ages, gender, sexual ori-
entation, religion, socio-economic stratification, political orientations, lifestyles, and so on. However,
confirming that these questions feature across social diversity markers does not imply that power differ-
entials based on such diversity markers can be overlooked when considering the utilisation of rhetorical
questions, as this paper proposes.
2
This notion has been proposed elsewhere, for example by the Milan associates in the positive connota-
tion as a way to address the paradox enclosed in the request of therapy, alongside ‘resistance’ to the
changes it may bring about. The paradox change-no change can be answered with the counter-paradox
no change-change (Selvini-Palazzoli et al., 1978). Similarly, within person-centred approaches, the
unconditional regard for the person of the client is seen as essential in the construction of a good
enough therapeutic alliance (Rogers, 1956).
3
This process could also be understood as an instance of what in hypnosis is known as ‘The Law of
Reversed Effort’ by which the harder one tries to do something, the less chance one has of success.
This phenomenon has also been noted in popular sayings such as ‘if you want something, let it go’ or
fairy tales like Hans Christian Andersen’s The Nightingale. Similarly, the Milan team’s positive conno-
tation to resolve the change-no change paradox mentioned in this paper, resolves the dilemma of ‘resis-
tance’ in therapy, letting go the intention to change makes change possible. The pattern common to
all of these instances is the conscious intention and effort to modify something in one’s immediate
environment, resulting only in frustrated attempts. Only when the intention to control the outcome of
our actions is dropped, the wished-for result can take place. Maturana and Varela’s concepts of autop-
oiesis and the consequent impossibility of instructional interaction could provide an explanation for
this phenomenon.

References
Bateson, G. (1972). Form, substance, and difference, in G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an Ecology
of Mind (pp. 455–471). New York: Ballantine.

34 ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy

 What Was I Thinking?!

Bertrando, P. (2007). The Dialogical Therapist: Dialogue in Systemic Practice. London: Karnac
Books.
Bertrando, P. (2015). Emotions and the Therapist: A Systemic–Dialogical Approach. London:
Karnac Books.
Bhattasali, S.E. (2015). Automatic identification of rhetorical questions. 53rd Annual Meeting
of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on
Natural Language Processing (pp. 743–749). Beijing: Association for Computational Lin-
guistics. Retrieved from http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/sbhattasali/docs/acl2015_paper.pdf,
September 2017.
Bordin, E. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0085885.
Byng-Hall, J. (1995a). Therapy and supervision as secure bases, in J. Byng-Hall (Ed.), Rewrit-
ing Family Scripts: Improvisation and Systems Change (pp. 121–136). New York: Guilford
Press.
Byng-Hall, J. (1995b). Transgenerational continuity and discontinuity: Replicative, corrective
and improvised scripts, in J. Byng-Hall (Ed.), Rewriting Family Scripts: Improvisation and
Systems Change (pp. 9–12). New York: Guilford Press.
Carpenter, J., Escudero, V., & Rivett, M. (2008). Training family therapy students in concep-
tual and observation skills relating to the therapeutic alliance: An evaluation. Journal of
Family Therapy, 30, 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2008.00442.x.
Carr, A. (2005). Research on the therapeutic alliance in family therapy, in C. Flaskas, A. Per-
slez, & B. Mason (Eds.), The Space Between: Experience, Context and Process in the Thera-
peutic Relationship (pp. 187–199). London: Karnac.
Cecchin, G. (1987). Hypothesizing, circularity, and neutrality revisited: An invitation to
curiosity. Family Process, 26, 405–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00405.x.
Cecchin, G., Ray, G., & Lane, W.G. (1994). The Cybernetics of Prejudices in the Practice of
Psychotherapy. London: Karnac Books.
Escudero, V., Friedlander, M.L., Varela, N., & Abascal, A. (2008). Observing the thera-
peutic alliance in family therapy: Associations with participants’ perceptions and thera-
peutic outcomes. Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-64.
Fishelov, D. (2013). Types of dialogue: Echo, deaf, and dialectical. Semiotica, 2013(195),
249–275. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2013-0033.
Fredman, G. (2004). Transforming Emotion: Conversations in Counselling and Psychotherapy.
London and Philadelphia: Whurr.
Fredman, G., & Reder, P. (1996). The relationship to help: Interacting beliefs about the treat-
ment process. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1, 457–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1359104596013012.
Fruggeri, L. (2014). “Super-vision” as an Opportunity to Develop a “Different-vision”. Work-
shop held at the Institute of Family Therapy, London.
Green, C. (1989). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Griffith, J.L., & Elliott Griffith, M. (1994). The Body Speaks: Therapeutic Dialogues for Mind-
body Problems. New York: Basic Books.
Gutierrez Rexach, J. (1998). Rhetorical questions, relevance and scales. Revista Alicantina de
Estudios Ingleses, 11, 139–155. https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.1998.11.11.
Han, C.-H. (2001). Deriving the interpretation of rhetorical questions. Proceedings of the 16th
West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 237–253). Stanford: CSLI. Retrieved from
http://www.sfu.ca/%7Echunghye/papers/wccfl16long.pdf, September 2017.

ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy 35

 rez de Leo
Carmen Garcıa Pe n

Han, C.-H. (2002). Interpreting interrogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua: International

Review of General Linguistics, 112(3), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(01)
00044-4.
Hare-Mustin, R.T. (1994). Discourses in the mirrored room: A postmodern analysis of ther-
apy. Family Process, 33, 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1994.00019.x.
Horvath, A.O., & Symonds, D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in
psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 38, 139–149.
Hubble, M.A., Duncan, B.L., & Miller, S.D. (1999). The Heart and Soul of Change: What
Works in Therapy? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kaslow, N.J., Celano, M.P., & Stanton, M. (2005). Training in family psychology: A compe-
tencies-based approach. Family Process, 44, 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.
2005.00063.x.
Kenny, V., & Gardner, G. (1988). Constructions of self-organising systems. The Irish Journal
of Psychology, 9(1), 1–24.
Leyland, M.L. (1988). An introduction to some of the ideas of Humberto Maturana. Journal
of Family Therapy, 10, 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1988.00323.x.
Lidbom, P., Bøe, T., Kristoffersen, K., Ulland, D., & Seikkula, J. (2015). How participants’ inner
dialogues contribute to significant and meaningful moments in network therapy with adoles-
cents. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37, 122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591015-9331-0.
Madigan, S.P. (1992). The application of Michel Foucault’s philosophy in the problem exter-
nalizing discourse of Michael White. Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 265–279. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1992.00458.x.
Markham, L., & Chiu, J. (2011). Exposing operations of power in supervisory relationships.
Family Process, 50, 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2011.01373.x.
Mason, B. (2005). Relational risk-taking and the training of supervisors. Journal of Family
Therapy, 27(3), 298–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2005.00322.x.
Maturana, H. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and
other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 9, 3–4.
Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.G. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel.
McGee, D., Vento, A.D., & Bavelas, J.B. (2005). An interactional model of questions as ther-
apeutic interventions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 371–384. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01577.x.
Murray, J. (1994). Maturana’s biology and some possible implications for education, in L.
Fell, D. Russell, & A. Stewart (Eds.), Seized by Agreement, Swamped by Understanding. A
Collection of Papers to Celebrate the Visit to Australia in August 1994 by Humberto Matu-
rana. Sydney: Hawkesbury Printing, University of Western Sydney. Retrieved from https://
www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/seized/educat.html, September 2017.
Penn, P. (1982). Circular questioning. Family Process, 21, 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1545-5300.1982.00267.x.
Pinsof, W. (1994). An integrative systems perspective on the therapeutic alliance: Theoretical,
clinical and research implications, in L.S. Greenberg & A.O. Orvath (Eds.), The Working
Alliance: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 173–195). New York: Wiley.
Poerksen, B., & Maturana, H.R. (2006). The paradox of education: A conversation. Journal of
Aesthetic Education, 40(1), 25–33.
Recchia, H.E., Howe, N., & Ross, H.S. (2010). Children’s understanding and production of ver-
bal irony in family conversations. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 255–274.
Reissland, N. (1998). The pitch of “real” and “rhetorical” questions directed by a father to his
daughter: A longitudinal case study. Infant Behavior & Development, 21(4), 793–798.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90046-7.

36 ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy

 What Was I Thinking?!

Rober, P. (2005). Family therapy as a dialogue of living persons: A perspective inspired by

Bakhtin, Voloshinov and Shotter. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(4), 385–397.
Rogers, C. (1956). Client-centered Therapy (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Seikkula, J. (2011). Becoming dialogical: Psychotherapy or a way of life? The Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32(3), 179–193.
Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G.F., & Prata, G. (1978). Paradox and Counter-
paradox. New York: Jason Aronson.
Selvini Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G.F., & Prata, G. (1980). Hypothesizing-circular-
ity-neutrality: Three guidelines for the conductor of the session. Family Process, 19, 3–12.
Sprouse, J. (2007). Rhetorical questions and Wh-movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(3), 572–
580. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.3.572.
Street, E. (1997). Family therapy training research – An updating review. Journal of Family
Therapy, 19, 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00040.
Symonds, D., & Horvath, A. (2004). Optimising the alliance in couple therapy. Family Pro-
cess, 43(4), 443–455.
Tomm, K. (1987a). Interventive interviewing: Part I. Strategizing as a fourth guideline for the
therapist. Family Process, 26(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1987.00003.x.
Tomm, K. (1987b). Interventive interviewing: Part II. Reflexive questioning as a means to
enable self-healing. Family Process, 26(2), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.
1987.00167.x.
Tomm, K. (1988). Interventive interviewing: Part III. Intending to ask lineal, circular, strate-
gic, or reflexive questions? Family Process, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-
5300.1988.00001.x.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.

ª 2018 Australian Association of Family Therapy 37