This paper critiques six articles published in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy that engage with Salvador Minuchin's foundational essay on narrative family therapy. Beginning with Minuchin's assertion that social constructionism renders the family "invisible," the paper examines responses from Harlen Anderson, Combs and Freedman, Carlos Sluzki, and Karl Tomm, each of whom challenges Minuchin's skepticism toward postmodern and social constructionist influences. The paper also reviews Minuchin's rebuttal. Across all six articles, key tensions emerge around the role of the individual self in family therapy, the validity of postmodern frameworks, and whether innovative therapeutic techniques strengthen or undermine family-centered treatment.
The family is one of the central motivators of psychological development among humans. Though largely neglected by psychologists and therapists until recently, it is now a dominant area in human development research and clinical practice. Salvador Minuchin has used narrative family therapy as a cornerstone of his practice. In his article "Where is the Family in Narrative Family Therapy," he describes himself as a "systemic family therapist" (1998, p. 397) and considers the value of social constructionism as it relates to narrative therapy.
Minuchin observes that in many therapeutic settings, rather than relating to one another as a family, members become an audience while one person speaks at a time. He argues that the family is more than a transmitter of social instruction — it is the interaction among members that is the most important element of family therapy. While social constructionism attempts to give voice to the disempowered by allowing each family member to speak and to share their feelings, Minuchin contends that this approach has dubious therapeutic value and renders the family itself "invisible." While he may have a point, it is also necessary to understand what individual family members think as well as how they interact, so his concerns should not be dismissed entirely.
Minuchin's central critique of social constructionism in family therapy rests on his belief that privileging individual narrative voices displaces the relational and interactional dynamics that define the family as a therapeutic unit. He does not dispute the importance of hearing family members' perspectives, but he is skeptical that one-at-a-time storytelling captures the complexity of family interaction. For Minuchin, therapy must keep the family system visible rather than fragmenting it into a series of individual accounts. This tension between systemic and constructionist approaches forms the core debate to which all five responding authors direct their attention.
In "Reimagining Family Therapy: Reflections on Minuchin's Invisible Family," Harlen Anderson also takes issue with Minuchin's reservations about incorporating innovative techniques into family therapy. Anderson argues that just as Minuchin and his colleagues once initiated the concept of family therapy, others may offer insights that add to it rather than subtract from it — even when those insights are framed by contemporary concepts and ideas. Anderson contends that postmodern and social constructionist theories have already become an influence on all forms of psychotherapy and may represent a "turning point" (1999, p. 3) for family therapy as well. Where Minuchin views these trends as manipulative and counterproductive, Anderson sees them as innovative and capable of creating a more realistic platform for the therapist — a view this writer shares.
"Challenging Minuchin on language, selfhood, and therapist objectivity"
"Sluzki and Tomm defend constructivism and the therapeutic self"
"Minuchin responds; debate on rigidity and cultural diversity"
You’re 35% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.