Z is for Zen

In 1998 Gale Miller and Steve de Shazer published ‘Have you heard the Latest Rumor about . . . . ? Solution-Focused Therapy as a Rumor’ . In it the authors are clear about their purpose in writing the essay: ‘Our goal is not to offer the final, definitive, and only credible story about solution-focused therapy. We recognize that rumors belong to whole communities. No particular storyteller "owns" a rumor.’’ (Miller and de Shazer, 1988 p 365) The authors in thus saying are clearly open to differences, to different versions of the ‘rumor’, indeed to the inevitability of such differences. Later the authors offer us a key criterion that perhaps we can, in their view, bear in mind when ‘evaluating’ the various ‘rumors’ ‘We suggest that solution focused therapists and others who hear different versions of the solution-focused therapy rumor ask two questions about these stories: How is solution-focused therapy defined within the stories; what is it that the stories are about? And, do the stories offer adequate descriptions of how solution-focused therapy is done? Solution focused therapists might raise the latter issue in a different way by asking, does this story adequately describe the concrete details of what I do as a therapist and my clients do in response to me?’ (Miller and de Shazer, 1998, p 377). The authors invite us into an essentially pragmatic way of making sense of the various ’rumors’ – does this version adequately tell me what to do when I sit down with a client. Indeed de Shazer himself wrote ‘Therapy needs to be described in such a way that therapists understand what to do and how to do it’ (de Shazer, 1991, p 26).

One feature of the telling of the ‘rumor’ over time has been the idea that the Solution focused approach drew on Zen thinking in its development, or perhaps that the approach fits with Zen thinking. However when seeking for references to Zen I have found not one indexed reference in any of de Shazer’s books nor indeed in Insoo Kim Berg’s. In fact the only use of the term ‘Zen’ by de Shazer or Berg that I have found in print, so far, occurs in an article entitled ‘On the Importance of Keeping it Simple: Taking the Patient Seriously: A conversation with Steve de Shazer and John Weakland’ authored by Michael Hoyt and first published in Constructive Therapies (Hoyt, 1994). As they are concluding their conversation Hoyt asks Weakland:

Hoyt: what would you want people to take from your work?

Weakland: What would I want them to take from my work? I think that’s fairly simple. Which is you look around the world, try to understand behavior, look at how people are dealing with each other first, and don't get away from that until you've given it a good look.

de Shazer: Don’t let the theory get in the way. Theories will blind you.

Weakland: Also, don't let the theory that “everything is individual” get in your way. Don't let the theory that “everything is genetic" get in your way. Look at what the hell people are doing right here and now where you can look at them.

de Shazer: Don't even let the theory of “everything is not individual" get in your way.

Weakland: Okay. Fair enough.

de Shazer: It might be individual this time.

Hoyt: What in Zen they would say “Have a beginner's mind.”

de Shazer: Yeah.

Weakland: I think this emphasis is still fair because it is very plain that the medical way of looking and the individual psychology way of looking have gotten tremendous emphasis and support compared to anything that’s gone with looking at the way people deal with each other on all fronts.

de Shazer: Absolutely. They also say in Zen, "Before enlightenment, a mountain is a mountain. After enlightenment, a mountain is a mountain.” (Hoyt, 1994, p 37).

Beginner’s Mind

So here de Shazer is eschewing complexity, keeping it simple, utilising the ‘beginner’s mind’ as Hoyt suggests. The mountain is still a mountain after enlightenment. In ‘Minimal Elegance’ de Shazer wrote ‘Brief Therapists are often told that they are simple-minded. This, I gather, is meant as a put-down, but, as a brief therapist, I consider it a profound compliment’ (de Shazer, 1987, p 57). As he writes in Clues ‘Any explanatory metaphor is more complicated than simply taking the complaint at face value’ (de Shazer, 1988, p 143) and then some pages later ‘From a minimalist's perspective, it is best to assume that a wet-bed is simply a wet-bed, teeth-grinding is teeth-grinding, voices are voices and nothing more’ (ibid, p 150). Stay with what we see and what the client reports rather than focusing on our own therapeutic stories about the client’s behaviour. Lee, Sebold & Uken (2003) cite de Shazer stating in a personal communication ‘Too often people who want to learn SFBT fall into the trap of not being able to see that the difficulty is to stay on the surface when the temptation to look behind and beneath is at its strongest’ (p 18). Maintaining the ‘beginner’s mind’ is truly one of the greatest challenges for practitioners.

The illusion of Stability.

The saying ‘You cannot step into the same river twice" is attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus. Of course when we are stepping into the river on any occasion after the first ‘stepping’ it is likely that we are stepping in with that illusion of stability, the river, we tend to assume is the same river and we, we assume, are also the same person. The inevitability of change and difference is deeply embedded in the Solution focused approach. The idea of exceptions assumes that there will always be times when things are better, just as there will also be times, inevitably when more of the problem state is present. Indeed the inevitability of difference, of ‘better’, became fundamental in the definition of what is a problem. Any situations where there are not exceptions, de Shazer would state, is not a ‘problem’ but a ‘life situation’ and as such is not susceptible to change. In relation to ‘life situations’ difference is found in how we cope with them, and in relation to coping there will always be variability. Rather similarly, when we initiate follow-up sessions we start with ‘so what has been better?’ with the assumption that there will inevitably be times when things were better, if only marginally and perhaps of short duration. The issue for the practitioner of course is how can we ask questions such that the client notices those better moments and is enabled to describe them. The Zen concept of the ‘illusion of stability’ is indeed reflected in the Solution Focused approach.

Leaving no footprints.

Nick Drury has recently given further life to the ‘Zen rumor’. Early in his paper he writes: ‘Zen was very central to the development of SFBT, with Insoo Kim Berg’s Korean heritage being prominent.[1] She was fond of the saying “leave no footprints”, that she once told me was from Zen. Actually when Chan Buddhism came to China in the 5th century it met Taoism and a rich dialogue ensued. This saying stems from Tao te Ching aphorism 17 which says that the best leaders or teachers are hardly known, and is similar to aphorism 60 which says “governing a country is like cooking a small fish, too much poking spoils it”. Most solution focused therapists I know prefer to work with the client’s preferred future, which is often elicited via the “miracle question”, and then scale progress from that point on. They are reluctant to offer ideas of their own, as to do so would leave a footprint. They are fond of referring to Steve de Shazer who said that “politics is something that you do in your private life not in your role as a therapist” (E. George, 2019)’ (Drury, 2025). Striving to leave footprints that are as shallow as possible, to strive to leave none would be to set ourselves up to fail, is reflected in multiple aspects of our approach. Eliciting the client’s own ‘best hopes’ (George et al., 1990), truly not-knowing what the client could or should do to make progress, having no picture of the life that the client should be living, resisting the urge to ‘cheer lead’, centering the client’s own evaluation ‘so are you pleased with the way that you . . .?’ , inviting the client to take credit for their success and so on would all be facets of this, according to Insoo Kim Berg, Zen-derived aspiration.

Thus it can indeed be argued that there are connections between Solution Focused Practice and Zen Buddhism. How significant those connections were in the development of the approach it is hard to know, perhaps the over-laps are entirely coincidental and ‘post-hoc’, people noticing the connections after the fact of the emergence of the approach. However it could even be noted that the Zen belief in the capacity that all have for self-awareness, and emphasis on people finding their own path fits with the deep-rooted belief in Solution Focused practice that every client has the capacity to change and that the best route towards their preferred future is their own!

 

Drury, Nick. (2025). Daruma dolls and solution focused practice. Journal of Solution Focused Practices, 9(1), 56–68. https:/?/?doi.org/?10.59874/?001c.140675

de Shazer, Steve (1987) Minimal Elegance. Networker – September- October 1987  57 - 60

de Shazer, Steve (1988) Clues: Investigating Solutions in Brief Therapy. New York: Norton.

de Shazer, Steve (1991) Putting Difference to Work. New York: Norton.

George, Evan., Iveson, Chris. and Ratner, Harvey. (1990; Revised and expanded Edition 1999) Problem to Solution: Brief Therapy with Individuals and Families. London: BT Press   

Lee, Mo Yee, Sebold, John, Uken, Adriana (2003) Solution-Focused Treatment of Domestic Violence Offenders: accountability for change. New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, Gale. and de Shazer, Steve.(1998) Have you heard the latest rumor about ...? Solution-focused therapy as a rumor. Family Process, 37: 363-77.

Evan George
London
22^nd June 2025