‘If we are curious’ writes Gianfranco Cecchin in ‘Hypothesizing, Circularity, and Neutrality Revisited: An Invitation to Curiosity,’[1] ‘we question premises—our own and those of the family we are treating.’ In raising curiosity to reformulate Milan school systemic therapy’s principle of neutrality he changed the course of what is now widely known as post-Milan systemic thinking. A detailed discussion unpacks Cecchin’s post-Milan reconceptualisation of clinical neutrality as an active philosophical curiosity, appreciating families aesthetically through pattern awareness and implementing circular questioning to disrupt rigid assumptions. An evaluation then critically questions strengths and opportunities of these theoretical propositions. While Cecchin compellingly foregrounds epistemic humility, ethical complexity, and creative possibility, practical integration of these conceptual advances is shown as backgrounded. Nonetheless, Cecchin issues an urgent call for sustaining theoretical vitality through perpetual critical reinvention that is irresistible.
The traditional conceptualisation of therapeutic neutrality as a position of detachment or non-involvement is radically reconsidered in this paper. Cecchin reconceptualises neutrality as an active process of curiosity that perpetuates ongoing systemic inquiry. From this perspective, neutrality is not a passive stance but rather an engaged process of exploring multiple explanatory hypotheses and perspectives.
Cecchin critiques the relativist interpretation of neutrality as implying that the therapist should avoid having or expressing opinions and taking responsibility. This passive neutrality quickly becomes a distant, aloof ‘coldness.’ Instead, Cecchin argues for active neutrality rooted in curiosity. Curiosity leads the therapist to invent and entertain alternative views and hypotheses about the clinical issues without becoming attached to any one in particular. Neutrality and curiosity are positioned as contextualising one another in a recursive cycle. The therapist’s curiosity eases the consideration of divergent perspectives and ideas. Conversely, neutrality supplies an open, non-judgemental space for curiosity to flourish.
This concept reemphasises evolving process over static explanation. Curious neutrality actively engages in ongoing systemic inquiry rather than passively accepting a singular definitive truth. Cecchin contrasts this with traditional linear approaches that look to find causal mechanisms and terminate exploration once a satisfactory explanatory model is found. A neutral curiosity is unwilling to accept any single limited perspective, instead remaining open to continuously exploring alternative possibilities.
Cecchin ladles concepts from Gregory Bateson[2] and notably Paul Watzlawick to explore this distinction. Linear, causal explanations stem from an epistemology that privileges uncovering the supposed objective truths assumed to underlie phenomena inherently. Cecchin argues that we have historically conflated the explanatory utility of coherence with correspondence truths. In contrast, a systemic epistemology recognises the inherent complexity and diversity of perspectives in understanding human experience. Explanations become pragmatic tools, not definitive truths.
This change in thinking liberates clinical practice from the confines of static diagnoses, replacing them with an evolving systemic inquiry. A curious neutrality opens possibilities for generating new hypotheses and stories from multiple voices. Circular questioning provides a method to put this epistemology into practice. Circularity unravels earlier explanatory certainties and reveals new potential for meaning. The therapist’s curiosity is thus constantly renewed through considering alternate ideas and patterns relationally.
Cecchin painstakingly articulates how reframing clinical neutrality as active curiosity transforms therapeutic practice. The therapist engages fully in the process of systemic exploration—though one could equally argue the same necessity for most if not all relational therapeutic approaches—without becoming constrained by any fixed conclusions. Curiosity sustains ongoing dialogue. Neutrality avoids arrestation. The two perpetuate each other in opening creative possibilities for understanding human experience from multiple perspectives. This philosophical grounding compellingly reorients the very heart of the therapeutic endeavour.
Cecchin insightfully expands upon how an aesthetic sensitivity to patterns, rather than discrete facts, fosters clinical curiosity and multiplicity. He draws upon Bateson’s conception of an aesthetic orientation that searches for the ‘pattern which connects’ rather than isolated entities. This ‘orientation’ is said to manifest in applied practices that appreciate the aesthetic forms created by the complex association of relationships and stories.
Here the scientific empirical emphasis on showing correspondent truth is replaced by an aesthetic delight in the plurality of explanatory patterns. No single story or map can definitively represent the territory of human experience. This paradigm aligns with construing clinical practice itself as an aesthetic art. The therapist creatively takes part in evolving new relational configurations and possibilities for living.
Respecting the integrity of the family system’s internal patterns and premises nurtures curiosity about the interconnections among its elements. Even seemingly dysfunctional or pathological patterns contain their inherent coherence. Looking to control or instruct the family ruptures the therapist’s curiosity and sense of exploration. I will return to this point shortly.
Cecchin suggests that linear causality stems from a desire to discover the one ‘correct’ description of reality. In contrast, systemic curiosity proliferates multiple explanatory stories illuminating interrelationship richness. Entertaining hypothetical stories frees the investigation from the confines of any given narrative. No conclusion permanently ends the creative generation of novel ideas and connections.
He juxtaposes this conceptualisation against traditional practices that selectively privilege the explanatory description that best fits the clinical facts. This frequently disables further curiosity, argues Cecchin, in favour of concretised certainty in formulation or diagnosis. Thus, linearity reduces multiplicity into a singular ‘truth.’
In contrast, delighting in the plurality of explanatory patterns sustains curiosity rather than arresting it. Considering relationships frees understanding from the artificial isolation of clinical’ facts.’ Meaning emerges through the interconnected narratives woven between the therapist, family, and context. This aesthetic orientation shuns reductionism for wholeness and actualisation.
Cecchin’s philosophy of applied practice aligns squarely within Bateson’s characterisation of an ‘art’ of therapy that cultivates an aesthetic sensitivity to the perception of complex relations over analysing disconnected parts. The therapist takes a role in crafting new relational configurations without imposing external judgements on the family’s internal integrity. Curiosity also relates to the family’s experiences aesthetically, seeking patterns that connect rather than divide.
This philosophical reframing compellingly positions family therapy as an aesthetic art committed to the plurality of perspectives. No single truth is reified above the systemic connexion of stories and relationships. Curiosity perpetuates ongoing exploration. The ethical posture respects the family’s patterns without requiring directive correction. Here Cecchin strikingly evokes—if he is not already radically evocative—how aesthetic creativity potentiates transformative humanistic therapeutic possibilities.
Cecchin insightfully explicates how the technique of circular questioning disrupts the constraint of linear explanations that reify existing belief systems. Circular inquiries emphasise hypothetical relationships rather than static facts. In other words, ‘circular inquiries’ liberate new possibilities for meaning outside the family’s current linear explanatory premises.
He critiques linear causality for reinforcing belief systems that rigidly posit immutable realities, diagnoses, and identities. Family member’s problems become reified and relationships fixed. Therapy investigates the fractured parts rather than the whole. The certainty that goes with linear causal explanation quells curiosity.
In contrast, circular questioning fundamentally undermines these taken-for-granted explanatory certainties. Cecchin draws on the Milan School’s pioneering family work applying circularity to expose the relativity of belief systems underpinning the family’s symptoms. Circular inquiry reveals the fluid interconnectedness of relationships rather than isolated facts.
For example, ‘If-then’ questions open speculative possibilities contrary to the family’s dominant storylines (therapist: ‘If your daughter were to start getting better grades in school, how do you think your husband would respond?’). Punctuating sequences differently illuminates contingent chains of influence among the family members. Likewise, future-oriented questions imagine hypothetical relationships that diverge from present assumptions (therapist: ‘If this family issue was completely resolved in the future, what would you be doing differently?’). The method of circularity unravels linear causation to proliferate multiple explanatory perspectives.
According to Cecchin, the virtue of circular inquiry is reconstructing meaning emphasising hypothetical relationships instead of declared facts. Questions highlight the processual nature of temporary clinical’ truths.’ Belief systems are exposed as contingent and evolving narratives, not intrinsic certainties. A healthy regard for contingency reorients therapy from diagnosing dysfunction toward multiplying generative potentials.
The critical revelation is that clinical problems do not reside within the individual or family but rather emerge through the interplay of relationships and stories. The expression ‘the difference between relationship and relata’ reflects one of the core concepts of Bateson’s theory, which is to distinguish between the entities involved in a communication process and the nature of their interaction. He argues that most problems arise from confusion or misunderstanding of the relationship between the relata, rather than from the relata themselves. ‘The whole is different from the sum of its parts’ writes Bateson (1972) ‘but also it is different from the sum of its parts plus their interrelationships. The whole contains both these differences and also something more.’ In keeping with this reasonable point about differences between relationship and those in relation to themselves and their relating: ‘the person is not the problem,’ write White & Epston (1990) in their Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends, ‘the problem is the problem.’
Circularity, it is argued, helps author alternative arcs that better serve life. Therapy becomes the collaborative crafting of new meanings and connections that transform belief constraints without ‘blame’ or personalisation. Cecchin cogently illustrates how implementing circular inquiry practically instantiates a systemic conceptual framework in clinical contexts—circular hypotheses creatively open possibilities outside dominant linear belief systems. The emphasis on relationship patterns disrupts the linear causality that may fix and separate. This philosophical approach compellingly reframes therapy as a praxis of multiplying potentials rather than diagnosing deficits. In this way, the therapeutic process itself evolves generatively.
Cecchin insightfully elaborates upon the recursive interlinking between the vital therapeutic principles of neutrality, hypothesising, and circularity. Rather than isolated techniques, these three concepts connect and perpetuate one another in a generative, evolving system.
Neutrality engenders curiosity, and hypothesising satisfies neutrality enabling circular questioning, which in turn nourishes further curiosity.
This conceptual reframing reveals the philosophical commitments underlying systems-based relational therapies. Neutrality supplies the open conceptual space for proliferating alternative hypotheses rather than forestalling upon a single explanation. The therapist abstains from authoritative judgements to explore systemic possibilities. Generating multiple hypotheses fulfils the curiosity stimulated through neutrality.
Considering diverse speculative perspectives reveals the contingent and rhizomatic nature of relationships. Events can be punctuated and explained in myriad ways depending on interpretive hypothesising, multiplicity loosens the constraints of linear causality or singular truth.
This fertility of hypotheses supplies the source material for constructing circular inquiries to implement with the family. Circular questioning draws out the inherent interdependence of relationships rather than isolated facts. Patterns become perceptible across hypothetical variations. Circularity in applied practice is said to enrich understanding of the systemic context.
The process comes full circle as circular dialogues prompt further hypothetical development, refinement, and revision. Initial speculative explanations give way to newly evolving ideas about the family’s relationships and stories. Circularity provides the pathway for ongoing curiosity.
Cecchin argues that their transformative potential diminishes when these concepts are reduced to formulaic techniques separated from philosophical meaning. Each aspect of the framework interrelates to sustain epistemological openness and systemic insight. (One may read ‘epistemological’ in this context as more or less equivalent to what we think we know.) Neutrality, hypotheses, and circularity must, it seems, perpetually reinvent each other.
This elegantly recursive model offers a synthetic metatheory for family therapy practice. Neutrality, curiosity, hypothesising, and circularity evolve through their interconnectedness. No part can be extracted in isolation. ‘Wisdom’ arises through the cumulative interplay of philosophy, clinical creativity, and therapeutic relationships.
Cecchin compellingly articulates how the Milan systemic therapeutic heritage is still vitally relevant through insightful conceptual integration of its fundamental principles.[3] Contemporary clinicians are called to re-engage this creative lineage to meet the urgent epistemological challenges of our current times. Therapeutic philosophy and applied practice must continuously reinvigorate each other as part of an open-ended ethical inquiry process.
Cecchin insightfully elucidates diagnostic signs showing when a therapist’s curiosity and systemic orientation deteriorate into rigidly formulaic practice. Symptoms of boredom and psychosomatic distress signal the clinician becoming fixated on a single perspective rather than integrating multiplicity. Rediscovering curiosity requires reconnecting philosophically through proliferating hypothetical perspectives.
When families seem like repetitive clichés rather than unique human systems, the therapist’s curiosity has diminished into disinterested apathy, and the clinical encounter fails to spark philosophical engagement. The family’s issues are construed through stock narratives rather than opening new questions and connections. There is, at this tired stage, this stuckness, no delight in exploring the novel patterns and potentials of each relationship.
This bored diagnosis reflects the therapist presuming to grasp already the ‘truth’ of the family’s dilemmas and be stuck with it. Curiosity expires when understanding is reduced to facile explanations. Without the humility of not-knowing, therapeutic learning ceases. Families become collections of symptoms rather than opportunities for mutual discovery. The richness of life’s ambiguity fades into monochrome assumptions of certainty.
Cecchin further identifies common psychosomatic symptoms —headaches, exhaustion, tension—that can arise when a therapist abandons curiosity for rigid judgement and control—losing a systemic perspective plunging one into the impossible linear task of unilaterally correcting families rather than collaboratively evolving new meanings with them. The therapist’s health somatically registers the stress of abandoning creativity for constriction.
Escaping these symptoms requires reconnecting to philosophy’s wellspring of curiosity. When knowledge becomes burdensome rather than enlivening, the reciprocal dance between ideas and practice has broken down into joyless procedures. Returning to theoretical foundations replenishes imagination and hypotheses. Philosophising, in this sense, revitalises practical therapeutic interventions.
For Cecchin, curiosity manifests the therapist’s commitment to ongoing ethical engagement with multiplicity and systemic complexity. Boredom and burnout are warnings that one has sacrificed philosophical curiosity for standardised methodologies. Technique becomes separated from meaning-making. Restoring curiosity necessitates reimmersing therapeutic approaches in the philosophical currents from which they emerged.
These vital insights orient practitioners toward the ceaseless work of sustaining curiosity amid the profound epistemological challenges of clinical practice. There are no ultimate answers immune from questioning. Therapeutic progress depends upon the nourishment of imagination and critique through philosophical reflection. Cecchin argues that our concepts must evolve for our practices to remain endowing, ethical, and alive.
Cecchin compellingly articulates an ethical orientation for the therapist looking to facilitate family system’s evolution toward more functional patterns without imposing external moral judgements. The clinician’s role is to show the inherent coherence of the family’s existing premises while trusting change to emerge through their agency. That fine balance requires philosophical curiosity towards an implied actualisation.
Rather than confront pathological patterns with rejection, the therapist can illuminate the intelligibility of their underlying logic and functions. Even seemingly self-defeating behaviours contain existential meaning from the family’s perspective. Rigidly correcting dysfunction may violate dignity; however, respectfully explicating internal coherence plants seeds for new directions to arise organically.
Cecchin critiques the traditional paradigm of the therapist directly instructing the family to implement healthier patterns. He argues that this situation stems from a linear epistemology that decontextualises problems into discrete symptoms needing repair. However, the complexity of family systems cannot be so simplistically diagnosed and corrected, says Cecchin. Change must proliferate from within through recursive evolution.
The therapist must therefore quell the hubristic temptation to reorganise the family’s dynamics unilaterally. While legal authority obligates reporting serious harm, lasting ethical transformation exceeds coercion. The most potent lever for change is the philosophical illumination of creative possibilities latent within the existing system.
This fulfils the art of deploying clinical knowledge to engender family autonomy rather than dependence. Nevertheless, exercising such restrained influence demands acknowledging the intrinsic limits of the therapist’s interpretive vantage and power. Practising non-hierarchical curiosity safeguards against unconsciously morphing insight into imposition.
According to Cecchin, appreciating the logic of current patterns while envisioning latent potentials nurtures family’s intrinsic motivation and capacity for growth. From this matrix of understanding, families can integratively generate more functional configurations aligned with their values. The therapist modestly holds the space for this self-organisation.
Such philosophically grounded practice rejects superficial judgements about dysfunction. Out of respectful curiosity toward the complex integrity of family systems openings arise for meaningful change. The therapist’s artful influence catalyses natural evolution. This elegant model thoughtfully reconciles humanistic ethics and non-directive therapeutic modes with pragmatic clinical engagement.
2.
But the critical reader will have noticed Cecchin’s frequent references to ‘philosophy’ and ‘philosophical foundations’ when describing his reconceptualised principles of neutrality-curiosity, hypothesising, and circularity. However, his use of these terms stays elusively defined rather than substantively grounded in specific philosophical traditions.
While appeals to philosophy lend conceptual gravitas, Cecchin does not engage in a discernible philosophical exposition. There are no references to foundational philosophers or schools of thought besides Bateson. The connections to philosophy are asserted rather than demonstrated through in-depth reasoning and textual argumentation.
Without elaboration, Cecchin’s term ‘philosophical’ gambles on not becoming a catch-all adjective for conceptual ideas. It implies authoritative profundity without showing precise philosophical anchors for his arguments. This obfuscates rather than clarifies the theoretical roots of claims made.
Greater elucidation of the specific philosophical lineages informing Cecchin’s therapeutic principles would bolster his proposals. For instance, his critique of objectivity aligns with social constructionist epistemology. His ethical emphasis on complexity resonates with hermeneutic phenomenology. Correspondence and coherence are the two main theories of and for truth. Circular causality has a precedent in CG Jung and post-Jungian thought, most notably with Paul Watzlawick’s work on ‘Change’. Making these philosophical foundations explicit rather than vague would underscore the logical rigour of Cecchin’s position.
While Cecchin’s call for reinvigorating philosophy in applied practice is entirely valid and helpful, his use of the term ‘philosophy’ stays vague and implies knowledge. His impassioned general appeals would be bolstered by delineating the specific philosophical traditions, thinkers, and perspectives grounding his theoretical renovations. More robust philosophical contextualisation would enhance the authority and adoptability of his acute insights.
Cecchin compellingly argues for reconceptualising clinical neutrality as an active curiosity perpetually generating alternative systemic hypotheses. However, some therapists might critique this stance as impractical incapacitating interventions. Similarly, while an aesthetic sensitivity to patterns intuitively enriches understanding, hypersensitivity imperils romanticising dysfunction emphasising coherence over beneficial change.
Reimagining neutrality as curious inquiry helpfully circumvents its passive connotations of detached non-involvement. Clinicians avoid calcifying into rigid methodologies by staying ‘philosophically’ engaged. This conceptual reframing insightfully aligns with systems theory’s ethical sensitivity to complexity. However, Cecchin’s epistemic humility might be susceptible to counterclaims concerning undermining decisive action when necessary. Total openness may prevent therapists from judiciously evaluating when existing patterns become harmful. Does profound curiosity about the intricacies of abuse excuse one from intervening? Of course, it does not. Philosophical sensibilities towards uncertainty may in practice paralyse duties of care.
Moreover, Cecchin’s radical critique of objectivity risks severing critical judgements from contextual practice-based evidence. While usefully highlighting knowledge’s perspectival nature, this outlook still needs grounding in intersubjective ethics or a base foundation of what makes therapy professional to avoid collapsing into relativistic incoherence. Tentative truths may, of course, be collaboratively constructed through thoughtful evaluative hypothesising.
Likewise, appreciating the latent logic intricately embedded within even seemingly dysfunctional family patterns supplies a positively empathic starting point for catalysing change. This aesthetic sensibility for the integrity of whole systems inspires compassion. However, taken too far, such a stance risks sentimentalising dysfunction as inevitable expressions of familial ‘beauty’ or ‘coherent truth’ rather than sites for meaningful change. The allure of conceptual coherence ought to be tempered with ethical discernment and pragmatic limitations.
While patterns perpetuating abuse require therapeutic disruption, Cecchin’s ‘philosophical’ caution against unilateral judgement stays valid. Perhaps integrating systematic evaluation when patterns become exploitative with empathic curiosity about how they hold existential meaning for families offers a balanced, ethical way forward.
As a piece Cecchin offers profound conceptual reforms that critically advance therapeutic ‘philosophy.’ However, their extensive epistemic openness and reticence require integration with judicious anchoring in ethical priorities and evidence-based practice, or practice-based evidence, to sustain systemic thinking’s true emancipatory potential. The merits of Cecchin’s vision could become even more compelling through nuanced pragmatic refinement.[4]
Cecchin compellingly articulates how implementing circular questioning can practically disrupt rigid belief systems by highlighting relational patterns over static facts. As I have noted elsewhere, however, overreliance on circularity risks convoluting clarity if not purposefully directed or directed too early in the therapeutic process.[5] Similarly, while the proposed recursive integration of therapeutic principles intuitively engenders systemic understanding, its abstraction may prove difficult to translate into realisable clinical practice.
Critiquing linear causality for unthinkingly reinforcing assumptions, Cecchin insightfully advocates circular inquiry as an antidote that reveals the contingency of beliefs. Circularity loosens the inertia of self-fulfilling explanations by proliferating alternative punctuations. This epistemic humility aligns with social constructionism’s ethical stance against intellectual orthodoxy.
However, circular questioning can become aimlessly recursive rather than strategically revelatory if not clearly focused on unravelling specific dysfunctional premises. Without orienting purpose or destination, circularity may convolute rather than expand understanding. The technique requires thoughtful implementation tailored to each family’s unique dilemmas. Both linear and circular questions have their season.
Cecchin’s proposed recursive integration of therapeutic principles similarly holds promising potential while raising pragmatic concerns. Systemically interrelating philosophical concepts fosters an elegantly holistic practice. Each aspect perpetually enhances the others in a generative cycle.
Nevertheless, this sophisticated meta-theory risks being difficult to condense into direct clinical skills. Cecchin assumes deep familiarity with the Milan lineage’s conceptual history. The practical applications of such recursive thinking for contemporary pluralistic clinicians are still ambiguous. The benefits of elegant abstraction must be balanced with teachable content.
While Cecchin’s visionary ‘philosophical’ reforms compellingly modernise systemic psychotherapy, translating their multifaceted abstractions into accessible training protocols is still necessary. Ethically endowing families through systemic creativity depends on democratising specialised ideas for diverse practitioners. Cecchin’s insights provoke as much practical possibility as conceptual intrigue.
Cecchin supplies an invaluable diagnostic framework for detecting when therapists slip into complacent boredom versus sustaining philosophical curiosity. However, boredom’s causes also stem from excessive caseloads. Similarly, while respecting family’s patterns as logical is ethically sensitive, this risks being morally permissive of destructive dynamics. Nuance is needed alongside sound clinical reasoning. Attuning to boredom and psychosomatic symptoms as red flags warning of diminished curiosity is critically essential for supporting theoretical engagement. As Cecchin highlights, without perpetual philosophical reinventing, techniques degrade into formulaic procedures devoid of emancipatory possibility.
However, in addition to a lack of curiosity, boredom may arise from exhausting working conditions and caseloads that alienate therapists from sustaining presence. Cynicism may show a lack of institutional resources rather than just individual failure. Ecological factors must complement ‘philosophical’ insights.
Respecting the inherent logic within family patterns provides a thoughtful alternative to pathologising worldviews. Cecchin argues that this empathic stance gently cultivates conditions conducive to growth. However, any suggestion of moral permissiveness around abuse surely requires explicit address. So, while non-hierarchical curiosity is ethically crucial and laudable, absolute ‘philosophical’ openness threatens to incapacitate judicious action. If patterns become exploitative, demonstrating their internal coherence without firm evaluation risks enabling. The courageous critique of harm must sometimes temper curiosity.
Cecchin offers invaluable revelations about how a ‘philosophical’ appreciation may reignite creativity through curiosity. However, one might welcome more systemic context about institutional or ethical constraints for translating these meta-theories into applied practice. Notwithstanding, Cecchin’s call for continuous critical self-renewal remains a visionary and relevant challenge for the entire field of psychotherapy.
[1] Fam Proc 26:405-413, 1987.
[2] Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press
[3] Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1978). Paradox and counterparadox: A new model in the therapy of the family in schizophrenic transaction. Jason Aronson.
[4] For more by the Dr Gianfranco Cecchin please see Cecchin, G., Lane, G., & Ray, W. A. (1992). Irreverence: A strategy for therapists’ survival. Karnac Books. Also see Cecchin, G., Lane, G., & Ray, W. A. (1994). The cybernetics of prejudices in the practice of psychotherapy. Karnac Books. And see Cecchin, G., & Apolloni, T. (2003). The art of improvisation: Gianfranco Cecchin in conversation with Tommaso Apolloni. Journal of Family Therapy, 25(2), 111-122.
[5] 14th August 2023
Reflections from a therapy room 
Leave a comment