Deconstruction -- There has been much written about deconstruction. It has to do with philosophy and language, assumptions and power. It would require making distinctions among a number of philosophical schools of thought, including post-modernist and social constructionist, among others. If the reader is interested in studying this more thoroughly, I would suggest that you check out some of the publications available through the Dulwich Centre.

My understanding is that any claim of truth about another person, about human nature or even about myself is probably a construction. Self esteem, for example, is a construction, as are the notions of drives or needs. All of these ideas were constructed at some point in history, and it is possible to trace back to approximately when these ideas were formulated, and to place them in the context of one theory or another. Mental illness is another example of a major construction, as are all the various diagnoses. Anything which has been constructed can be deconstructed.

The process of deconstruction is not done in narrative work in order to disprove the construction, or to say that this particular construction is wrong and ought to be replaced by another one which is right or correct. Rather, deconstruction is done in order to be able to notice the effects of the construction on the person's identity so that sufficient space will open up for the person to be able to decide if he or she prefers that construction or not. I have found it very useful to make the distinction between constructions and practices. Practices are sets of actions which have real, material effects on people's lives. For example, there are a number of practices of abuse, such as insults, pushing, shoving, slapping, humiliating another, etc. which often have devastating effects on people's lives. It is very useful in narrative work to identify these practices and their effects. It is not useful to try to externalize them or to deconstruct them, because they are not constructions.

If someone is consulting with me who engages in such practices of abuse, I would be interested in learning his or her position in regard to these practices, and in discovering what principles, values, hopes, dreams etc, they would have which would either justify or stand against such practices. A certain belief may emerge such as "I can't help it because I have a terrible temper." This is a construction, and it may well be helpful to deconstruct it. There are many possible questions which may be asked to begin such a deconstruction. Examples include: "Can you tell me about this terrible temper, and how it enlists you into its service?" "Do you in fact like to serve this temper or would you rather have a different relationship to it?" Or "Is your relationship to this terrible temper like that of a servant and master, or is it a different kind of relationship?" "What does this terrible temper want of you and what does it want for you and for your life?" This is very different from asking questions about why he engages in abusive practices. Those kinds of questions would very likely result in some attempt at excusing or minimizing the effects and responsibilities involved.

Thickening of the plot -- This is not simply a fancy use of words. Rather, it refers to the kinds of distinctions that are made from a narrative perspective. There is a distinction between a thick or rich plot and a thin conclusion. This is very different from the distinction which is often made in therapy (and increasingly in our daily lives) between surface and depth. We often hear that a person must discover what is true in "the depth of their being" or their "true self." In order to achieve this, it is necessary to call in an expert who will help the person to interpret the events of their lives.

Defining of myself -- In narrative work, identity is seen as being constantly formed and re-formed through experiences with others, and through our understandings of what is expected of us by the dominant culture in which we live. In our interactions with others, one story is often underlined, emphasized, noticed, told and re-told more than others. If the story that is told most often by most significant people in my life happens to be a story that is full of problems (problem saturated) then it would be very difficult for me to not have that story be strongly defining of my identity.

Dominant story -- Think of one of your favorite novels. There is a main plot and there are one or more minor plots or sub-plots. If your life were a novel, the dominant story would be the main plot. The alternate stories would be the sub-plots. If a novel is well written, the main plot does not completely define the main character. There are things left unsaid which the reader must put in herself or himself. We do not know everything that could be known about the character. There are surprises, but in a good novel these surprises do fit with some other knowledge that we do have of the character. As the surprises come to light, the reader will often have to re-construct his or her image of the character. There is a shift in understanding through this process. The character becomes different than he or she was thought to be.

This dominant story does not exist in a vacuum either. It is a story within stories that are being created and sustained within the larger cultural contexts of our lives. These larger cultural contexts are not neutral or passive. Rather, the common ways of thinking and believing as to what is normal or right in that context is a very powerful contributor to the creation of dominant stories.

Re-engagement of history -- There is a distinction made here which may be a very different way of looking at history than one may be used to. It is not a re-framing of history, because this implies the ability to sit in the present and define the meaning of historical events by changing my point of view. It is not a re-interpretation of history, as that implies that one account is as valid as another and that I only need to understand my history in the right way and it will serve me better. A re-engagement of history involves remembering events of my history that I may not have considered important. It involves re-engaging with those memories in an active way, so that the details are known and the connections between those details and various aspects of myself, my motives, my hopes, my principles, etc. can be made.

Tellings and re-tellings -- In the narrative perspective, our identities are constantly being formed and re-formed through our experiences in the world. We are multi-storied. As we interact with others, one or more of those stories are strengthened. Whenever someone in our life listens to our story (the telling) and is affected in some way by it, and then shares with us the effect on him or her of hearing this story (a re-telling), we will be affected. That story will be strengthened. The plot of that story will be thickened. This happens all the time with stories that we do not like or prefer. It is usually not difficult to find people in our lives to contribute to a thickening of the plot of a story we do not like. Let's say for example that I have had some experiences with others that have contributed to me developing a strong belief that no one is to be trusted. I will not have much difficulty in finding people in my life who will help thicken this plot.

In narrative work, there is a conscious effort to find people who might be interested in helping us to thicken the plot of those stories that we prefer. It is then possible to participate in tellings and re-tellings, and possibly re-tellings of the re-tellings, and on and on until these preferred plots gets thickened enough to where these preferred stories will take a dominant place in our lives.