ABSTRACT
It has become customary for family therapists to describe their non-judgemental position with the words neutrality and curiosity (Palazzoli et al. 1980a; Cecchin 1987). Within families there are strong mechanisms that result in blame and guilt. A therapeutic way of interacting and talking to family members about their dif®culty should not encourage these mechanisms even though they will often be very apparent. It is therefore important that the therapist, from the outset, works within a non-judgemental neutral position. This does not refer to an emotional non-involvement, e.g. an uncaring position. It refers to a non-attachment to the interactions, the stories, the feelings and the perspectives that all family members bring. The Milan school of family therapy (Palazzoli et al. 1980a) suggested that the therapist had `got it right' if no family member thought that the therapist was `on their side' (as opposed to other family members). Later ideas have suggested that this is best described as a curious stance because neutrality was being misconstrued as uncaring and would be inappropriate in situations where vulnerable family members need protection (Cecchin 1987). This means that the therapist is interested and even nosy about all the things that people imagine can occur. The therapist does not assume that she has grasped the meaning of even the common phrases that family members use to describe their lives; the therapist is interested in seeing how many different ways something can be described or explained rather than ®nding one `right' description. This attitude to the evolving clinical material can be likened to the curiosity of an anthropologist (or ethnographer) who ®rst meets a member of a new group.
