Rediscovering Interpersonal Punctuation

Deeply ingrained habits of language and perception make it almost impossible to avoid punctuating problematic events. We (as humans) routinely, automatically, and inevitably organize our experiences into series of discrete or semidiscrete events. Moreover, we develop strong beliefs about the accuracy and inevitability of our preferred punctuations. However, all punctuations have an arbitrary quality. One can always begin a story at a different point in time, leading to shifts in causal attributions. Consequently, the stories we tell ourselves and others are always selective, partial views of the territory. These stories inevitably obscure and distort potentially important features of the situation and make alternative forms of analysis difficult to contemplate. In other words, to represent events in language is also to automatically misrepresent them.

Humans routinely use a verbal formula that posits that whatever comes before (in time or space) can be construed as a cause of whatever comes after (3). Causal tales may be very circumscribed or very extended: “The milk spilled because the glass was too close to the edge of the table” versus “Modern table designs have led to more food accidents,” respectively. Furthermore, people tend to choose punctuations that portray them in a favorable (or at least less unfavorable) light. Note that linguistic acts are never neutral—they represent positionings that sustain, enhance, or rehabilitate an individual (or group) identity (4). In other words, shifts in punctuation have potentially important consequences—monetary, medical, romantic, entrepreneurial, and interpersonal. As we have implied, changes in punctuation play a role in the assignment of blame and responsibility. In this regard, consider as an example the parody of blame-shifting from the musical West Side Story: the gang members each try to persuade Officer Krupke that their bad upbringing mitigates their responsibility for their current harmful behavior. In each stanza, the punctuation changes, and blame is reassigned. In the song, the culprits named include parents, grandparents, drugs, unwanted pregnancy, immaturity, neuroses, sexual ambiguity, and social deprivation (5).

Of course, punctuation is a core weapon in debates over who is right and who is wrong. The participants in such conversations—spouses, family members, coworkers—typically engage in what might be labeled conversations of “accusation, characterization, and recrimination” ([6], p. 158). Such exchanges are the antithesis of helpful problem-solving dialogue. In fact, one cannot easily get from the right-or-wrong domain to the problem-solving domain. To make that shift, an individual must relinquish the claim that they are right and that others are wrong. This choice is one that therapists can (and usually should) encourage, and one way to do so is by “loosening” the attachment of clients to particular sets of punctuations.

In line with the philosophy that the “customer is always right,” clients are entitled to propose and defend whichever punctuations they prefer or—perhaps as often—the only ones they can envision. On the other hand, therapists, as professionals, are obligated to maintain a broader purview and to be ready to propose and argue for the wisdom and usefulness of alternative punctuations. In fact, from the authors’ perspective, helping clients to revise counterproductive punctuations is a core aspect of a therapist’s role. Again, we are not talking about merely reframing the situation. Rather, we are discussing revisions in the client’s preferred time frame. Also, unlike many traditional family therapy reframes, these alternative punctuations remain faithful to the facts as understood by the clients.

Even when a client is unable or unwilling to immediately entertain an alternative time frame, therapists must keep in mind that all punctuations (including their own) are incomplete descriptions of reality and represent particular, partisan positionings. Moreover, we propose that each punctuation has alternatives. This position is congruent with the clinical stance of Harold Mosak, the notable disciple of Alfred Adler, who (when training students) steadfastly maintained that even in situations in which one does not know what to do, there is always something to be done (7). Mosak’s position was that “if one tactic, response, or interpretation does not work,” then the wise clinician moves on to another strategy.

It must also be recognized that every member of a family or group has their own favored punctuations. For example, a mother might initiate therapy because she is worried about her son’s grades; the father thinks that their son would not need help if his mother did not coddle him, and the child’s main agenda is to strategize how to regain possession of his Sony PlayStation. Thus, therapists must recognize that in “seeing a family,” they are dealing with at least as many agendas and punctuations as there are family members. Even in an individual session, the punctuations of others in the client’s life will undoubtedly become topics of discussion.

What we are saying about punctuation requires flexible thinking. This is one of the reasons why we have found it useful to embrace the contextualist worldview (8). Contextualism recognizes and accepts the interconnected nature of the world—a unitary fabric with segments of looser and tighter weaves. Moreover, within contextualism, multiple and shifting punctuations are permitted and expected, and different levels of analysis are encouraged. No single lens can capture all possible interpretations of an event.

We consider it unfortunate that the concept of interpersonal punctuation fell into disuse when family and systems therapy approaches declined in popularity. As we have demonstrated, this concept can still play an important role in how both clients and therapists construe their interpersonal predicaments. Moreover, the concept of reframing (into which the notion of punctuation appears to have been absorbed) is not a substitute for punctuation’s specific emphasis on the role of shifting time frames. Punctuations determine how blame is assigned and which forms of causal analysis are deemed accurate and acceptable. Moreover, because linguistic neutrality cannot be achieved, punctuations establish social and interpersonal positionings—they influence how problems are perceived and how clients evaluate themselves and how they are evaluated by others.

Contextualism is the worldview that is best suited to thinking about interpersonal punctuation because it recognizes and accepts the interconnected nature of reality and the arbitrariness of all causal framings. Furthermore, contextualism encourages flexibility in shifting levels of analysis—readjusting and expanding angles so that different aspects of a phenomenon come into view and become available for analysis.

Difficulty arises when clients or therapists implicitly or explicitly reify punctuations. These reifications preclude alternative, potentially useful perspectives. Of course, clients (being the customers) are permitted to adopt any set of beliefs they like and to treat their punctuation as sacrosanct. However, therapists, as professionals who understand the fluid nature of interpersonal interactions and the biasing nature of language, are obligated to remain open to the multiple interpretations of a situation that shifts in punctuation can reveal (Box 1). In fact, by helping clients to entertain previously unnoticed or unacceptable punctuations, therapists can be of great service to their clients.