He gives a brief history of the birth of family centered therapy in the 1950's and again compliment Minuchin and his team and credits them for being a major part of this new dawn in psychotherapy. He also agrees with Minuchin that many of the newer "technologies and ad hoc practices," (1998, p. 416) have de-centered the family from center stage in many ways. However he disagrees that post modernism and social constructiveism are to blame. In fact Sluzki believes that many of the techniques of these genres, "include the family as a central contributor in the never ending process of reality construction." (1998, p. 417) He does agree with Minuchin that the shift towards more individual viewpoints may certainly be counterproductive to family therapy on many levels and feels likewise that political centered therapy is not constructive as a whole. In " A Question of Perspective," author Karl Tomm begins by citing two new trends in family therapy, bringing to light the introduction of cultural beliefs and practices and the introduction of individual life stories. Tomm states that Minuchin feels these two trends have diminished the value of the family unit as the "primary unit for assessment" (1998, p. 409) Tomm on the one hand agrees that these two trends have made an impact on family therapy that decentralizes the family as the primary locus for evaluative therapy. However, he does not necessarily view this as being so detrimental to the therapy as Minuchin does. In fact he believes that Minuchin has misinterpreted the viewpoints of both social contructivism and postmodernism in a rather narrow and self-serving view. Here again the author promotes the value of "the self" in any therapeutic context, although he re-imagines this self as, "being constituted of an internalized...

411), thereby creating an more inclusive archetype for gamily therapy, which he feels, as does this writer, the Minuchin has overlooked.
Muchin retorted in "Retelling, Reimagining and Re-Searching: A Continuing Conversation." To these authors as well as the overall response from the therapist community, to his stance, which he felt was quite misunderstood. He feels that the authors are making universal and theoretical points rather than dealing with particulars and reality as he sees it. He notes, and not without some agreement from this writer, that Anderson, Combs and Freedmans' idea of a fluid self that can change and adapt to situations is not what he has seen in his practice. Rather he has come up against very rigid and inflexible issues that take months or years to understand. However, that he choice to continually ignore the self in many respects as well as the cultural diversity present in many families is certainly anathema to good family therapy practice.