Metaphorization as a Tool for the Practicing Psychologist

Some time ago, a colleague and I went into a shop selling souvenirs and all sorts of little things. The purpose was simple: a holiday was coming up, and we were looking for gifts for our loved ones. Having chosen the souvenirs, we went to the checkout… And that was where the small incident occurred that finally convinced me that this article was worth writing and that psychologists are specialists of a rather unique kind. I was just about to write “unique people,” but caught myself: all people are unique. Yet among professionals (whether deservedly or not, and for what reasons, I will not discuss here—that is a topic for another article), psychologists perhaps really do have a distinctive way of looking at the world. Namely, it seems to me that intuitively, sometimes without any conscious desire or intention, almost subconsciously, we view the world around us as a source of new creative techniques, approaches, and, finally, objects that can help us solve professional tasks.

So what happened at the checkout?..

Nothing supernatural, really: my colleague and I were looking over a display of miscellaneous small items of the sort that shops now place near the checkout to further stimulate consumer demand for… frankly speaking, mostly things that are not particularly necessary. And among all these little items, our eyes fall at the same moment on a key ring shaped like a bell. A simple thing, made of thin polished metal, with a clapper inside. The very first question that comes to my mind is: does it actually ring too?.. We reach out at the same time and pick up the bells… Oh, wonder of wonders! They produce quite a melodious sound. We check whether we were mistaken?.. Is it really true?.. We look at each other.

My colleague smiles: “Listen, I was just thinking—maybe I could use it for work?..”

I give a slight inward start: “You know, that was the very first thing I thought too…”

We look at each other again and smile…

Five minutes later, we happily leave the shop with gifts for our loved ones. And with the bells.

What does this tell us? I am not suggesting that we make sweeping generalizations about how wonderful and creative psychologists are, or how special they are… This is not really about psychologists as such at all. For me, this incident became an especially vivid concentration of many thoughts I had had before about where to look for our professional—psychological—tools and how to use them. That is exactly what this article will be about.

Over the course of my professional life, I have repeatedly observed and taken part in situations in which there were not enough professional tools to solve current or strategic professional tasks. Like many of us psychologists, I have probably asked myself more than once: where can I find some little “thing” that will “work” right now?.. From my own experience I can say that the worst moments are when this shortage—usually a sudden shortage—of tools is felt during a training session. And not simply while developing the program or preparing for the meeting—that would not be a problem. Murphy’s law has not gone away, and a shortage of a tool—a technique or method—often becomes apparent during the training itself, almost at its very height… And then one has to frantically recall every method of “holding the group” one has ever read about, experienced personally, or seen colleagues use.

A brief digression to explain what I mean by a “shortage of tools.” Broadly speaking, I would divide this concept into two components. The first situation is a shortage of tools as such, when the psychologist’s repertoire of working methods simply does not contain one suitable for the situation, whether in a training session or in individual counseling.

The second situation is when the method being used—although the psychologist applies it in a technically precise and professionally competent way—turns out to be insufficient in this particular situation: for a number of reasons it does not work with this particular group/client, or it does work, but the result differs from what was planned—it is different or only partially achieved.

It is precisely then that we ask, following Chernyshevsky: what is to be done?

In this article I will try to briefly share my own thoughts and my entirely personal view of how this question might be answered. This means that the article in no way claims to be scientific or infallibly true. I see my task far more modestly: to share my reflections, first and foremost with fellow professionals among the readers, in the hope that this will help them find their own solutions and contribute to their professional development.

So. In almost any understanding of creativity, we encounter two main characteristics: the product of creative activity is some new result that is valuable not only to its creator but also to others; and secondly, the result of creativity always bears the imprint of the “creator’s” personality. Thus, when we view the world as a creative workshop, as stated in the title, we mean that a person—in our case, a psychologist—changes or manipulates objects from the surrounding world in such a way that they acquire a “new sound” and “added value,” expressed in their new usefulness for solving professional tasks.

Let us return to the source of the idea—the bell. When my colleague and I saw it on the display near the checkout, it was merely a cute key ring that, following modern fashion, could be hung on a bag, attached to a set of keys, or clipped to some “gadget.” That, essentially, was its purpose. But an inquisitive psychologist’s mind sees much more in this object.

Of course, like teachers and other specialists whose work requires them to spend a great deal of time with people, we can appreciate the bell as an excellent tool for attracting an audience’s attention and marking meaningful accents during a presentation.

We can take the fantasy further, and then perhaps the first thought that comes to mind is that the bell is an excellent “boundary marker”: once rules for its use have been agreed upon, the psychologist can unobtrusively divide the time of a session with a client into the necessary intervals. It can mark the beginning and end of an exercise or task; structure interaction within a group, for example by signaling the moment when partners change in paired exercises. Finally, when working with groups of children, the bell can also serve as a means of training concentration: one ring can be used to signal one type of task, three rings another, and so on. One only has to recall the excellent example of this kind of work in the film “Kindergarten Cop” with Arnold Schwarzenegger, where a whistle was used instead of a bell.

But so far these are utilitarian functions that are inherently characteristic of a bell, and there is nothing particularly new here. Let us go further and consider how our bell might be used at different stages of a training session. As we remember, if we represent the structure of any session in the simplest possible way, it will consist of three to five stages:

• introduction or greeting, whose purpose is to tune in to a “common wavelength” and enter the training space; as psychologists like to say, to tune in to the experience of the “here and now”;
• warm-up, whose main purpose is to lead toward the central topic or task of the session; so to speak, immersion in the “field of meaning”;
• the main part, which contains the principal meaning-forming exercises of the session and addresses the central thematic task of the particular training session or of the training as a whole;
• discussion or sharing, whose purpose is to work through and clarify what has happened throughout the meeting from the moment it began; an exchange of feelings and thoughts among participants; a kind of “logical full stop” to the session;
• farewell, whose purpose is to create a sense of completion for the training participants; a kind of “emotional full stop” at the end of the session. At this point, the “here and now” of each particular day comes to an end.

Sometimes the greeting flows smoothly into the warm-up, while sharing almost imperceptibly becomes the farewell, leaving only three main elements. So how can the bell be useful to us?.. In my view, above all because the bell is an amazingly multifaceted metaphor.

It can be used to describe the current emotional state: for example, during the greeting stage, participants can be asked to “ring out” a melody that conveys to the other members of the group a message about their mood or their wishes for the coming day/evening. Naturally, this kind of task is most suitable for communication-skills training or for what is broadly referred to as “personal growth.”

But if we turn to an analysis of the psychological content of the action itself—that is, ringing the bell—we can identify several psychologically useful functions in it. First of all, there is “positivizing,” or raising the emotional tone through the very element of play, since a bell, like any object that makes a sound, arouses curiosity. Secondly, there is greater freedom and the lowering of barriers, including communication barriers, because it offers an opportunity to “present oneself” through sound without materializing a result and therefore with a low probability of receiving criticism or condemnation in response. Thirdly, it offers the possibility of entering into communication with an extremely broad range of interpretations of communicative actions—the actual “manner of playing” the bell—which therefore provides both a fairly high degree of safety and an opportunity to receive very diverse feedback according to the principle: “I heard this in that ringing…” “And I heard something different…”

From what has been said above, we gradually arrive at the idea that the bell is an excellent means of metaphorically representing one’s personality during a training session, for example when using it in the main part of the meeting. Thus, during the group warm-up, one or two exercises involving sound can be carried out, either in small groups (for example, one popular exercise is for subgroups of three or four people to recreate a “sound image” of a city at night) or individually (inviting each participant to “make a sound” that corresponds to their mood).

After that, in the main part of the session, each person can be invited to associate themselves with the bell. If there are enough bells for every group member, distribute them and suggest individual work. If there are fewer bells, organize mini-groups, which can be formed according to the participants’ own wishes or by giving them a particular task (setting a theme) for work within the group. Then all that remains is to recall familiar techniques and methods and direct them toward the metaphorical image chosen for the day: participants can write short autobiographical stories or letters from the point of view of the bells; use pantomime to represent the image; draw and model scenes in which they take part; invent fairy tales and present musical plots…

And why not invite employees, during a training session on the basics of relaxation, to relieve stress after the working day by “playing out” on the bells, for example, the way their boss “tells them off”… And what feedback that would give the boss, if the boss is present—and without a single word that one could take offense at—well, just on a purely human level…

Obviously, most of these techniques can also be used in individual work: metaphorizing states, experiences, traits, and relationships through objects is akin to working with installations. One need only remember that any psychologist’s work must remain safe (though not always entirely comfortable) for both participants in the process. And the flight of imagination should be limited only by the appropriateness of the professional techniques chosen—that is, in the literal sense, their suitability or effectiveness in achieving the stated goal of the session or of the entire training program.

I do not think there is much point in going further into the details of using various objects from the environment to solve professional psychological tasks. It would be more useful, I think, if I set out a kind of algorithm for bringing an object into the “professional working field,” as I see it.

The first step in using the technique of metaphorization and, consequently, objects from the surrounding world in a psychologist’s practical work is by no means choosing the object. The first step is defining the GOAL toward which I, as a professional, want to move right now. In other words, before bringing an object into the work, I need to answer clearly for myself: WHY am I doing this? WHAT do I want to achieve by using this or that object from the surrounding world?..

The second step is to answer the next question: HOW will the object being used help me move toward the desired goal? Only when there is a clear understanding of which properties of the object will be useful in moving toward the goal and which specific, smaller tasks along the way they will help to solve does it make sense to bring the object into the field of professional activity. Returning to the example of the bell, one can note that only if I clearly understand HOW I am going to use it—that is, whether, for example, I will focus attention on the tone of its ringing or on its weight in order to clarify the client’s state or objectify their relationships with someone—does it make sense for me to use the bell in my work.

The third step is to competently “prepare” the client or group for working with a metaphor. As we know, people differ in their capacity for abstract, figurative, and metaphorical thinking. Some have these abilities developed to such an extent that they need no additional explanations or instructions for working with this technique, while others cannot detach themselves from the concrete object they see or hold in their hands. It is therefore very important to think in advance about ways to motivate the client for this form of work. By this I mean that a psychologist who is considering using metaphorization in practice should have well-thought-out formulations or worked-out ways of manipulating individual objects ready at hand—methods that, on the one hand, can demonstrate and, on the other, interest the client in this way of working. One possible way to involve a client verbally in metaphorical work is excellent command of the technique of asking projective questions, using not only the main informational modalities (auditory, visual, kinesthetic) but also other channels of nonverbal communication, such as the olfactory (smell-related) and proxemic (spatial) systems. I think the essence of such questions is clear, but I will nevertheless give a few examples (using the same bell as the material):

• How does this bell sound to you right now? Does its ringing remind you of anything?
• How would you describe the appearance of the bell? What does its color seem like to you?
• What does this bell feel like to the touch? What object would you compare it with in terms of weight? What object would you like to replace it with? Describe that object.
• Try closing your eyes and ringing the bell you are holding: choose a distance that feels comfortable to you, at which its sound seems most harmonious to you. (If necessary, I can help you and move away with the bell to the required distance.) What can you now say about its sound? (This engages at least two channels of perception at once.)
• …and so on.

And the fourth step, which in my view is also worth thinking through in advance: what will I do if the object I have chosen suddenly does not work?.. We have been talking here about metaphorization as a wonderful tool in a psychologist’s work, one that can be used in a great many situations and is always close at hand because any object in the surrounding world can become a source of metaphor. But this does not mean that the object chosen for the metaphor will necessarily work in every situation and with every client. And the conditions that determine the degree of its success include, at the very least, the three described above. In that case, however, we may once again find ourselves in a situation of a “shortage of tools.” Yet this situation is entirely solvable and by no means signifies disaster.

The first thing that needs to be done in a situation of a “shortage of tools,” if it arises directly in the course of work—individual or group work, it does not matter—is, despite panic or a mild degree of confusion, to calmly tell oneself: yes, at this moment I DO NOT KNOW what to do. If the degree of maturity of the group or the person with whom the work is being conducted, as well as the degree of maturity of the relationship between psychologist and client, are sufficient (in the psychologist’s own assessment), then in my view it is even permissible to say this aloud. Still, this course of events should be left for the most extreme case, when one’s struggle with one’s own confusion is becoming noticeable to others.

Once the fact of temporary “incapacity” has been acknowledged and stated, it is worth honestly admitting to oneself the feelings it evokes. Most likely, the range will not be a positive one: anger, fear or apprehension, confusion; perhaps dejection and even guilt (for one’s own lack of preparation and so on). As soon as an emotion or emotional state is named, it is acknowledged and brought into the open. This means that the force of its impact decreases, and the intellect gains an opportunity to begin productive work on finding a way out of the situation. And that means we become one step closer to a solution.

And finally, it is always worth remembering the potential that is hidden in the person themselves—or, all the more so, in the group with which we are working. Just as a lecturer sometimes finds a nontrivial answer to a question by putting it to the audience, so a trainer or counseling psychologist, by asking a question, may unexpectedly receive a clue or solution from the group in a situation of a “shortage of tools.”

I understand that this immediately raises a question: is it acceptable for a professional to find themselves in such a situation? And what, then, is the true level of their professionalism?.. In my view, it is acceptable. The question of what a “level of professionalism” is and where its “sufficiency” lies seems to me extremely multifaceted and, to this day, lacking either an adequate scale or adequate tools for measurement. It is therefore a debatable question and a matter for time.

The main point I would like to emphasize here is this: the world around us is a source of metaphors. And metaphor is a tool that can serve as a kind of “lifesaver” thanks to its enormous potential and the fact that it is available to us practically at any time.