Richard Bandler - Reframing. Neuro–Linguistic Programming™ and the Transformation of Meaning

A meta–part is kind of like an amnesia state waiting in the wings to be fired off. Within the meta–part is a program, a formal set of procedures, that comes out linearly. It's like a computer sub–routine more than anything else. «If parts disagree, then do X.» The meta–part operates and modifies the disagreeing parts. It operates on the other parts, but is only functional in response to a cue. The procedure that it uses is usually formal: it could do six–step reframing, it could do content reframing, or it could just give you amnesia. There are lots and lots of possibilities for what a meta–part can do. It's a part that influences other parts to keep them from being in conflict with each other, or keep them from doing something that makes you get arrested, or whatever.

One way of thinking about a meta–part is that it is a mechanism to build a response. Another way to think about a well–functioning meta–part is that if you go into a calibrated internal loop that is not useful, that state becomes an anchor for a procedure that elicits a response that will get you out of the loop. That is closer to how I think about it than as a part. The notion of parts is a good pace for most people's experience, but for me there is a bit too much anthropomorphism in the notion of parts. You can think of a meta–part as a part that makes a distinction and then kicks into a procedure that can take you somewhere else.

With a couple, you can build a part in one of them that operates only when they argue. This part recognizes that the reason they argue is because they want things to be better. Rather than going in and negotiating with all the parts that feel right about things and argue, you can build a part that recognizes that they are now making themselves feel bad because they want to feel good. What they want is fine, but the way they are going about it stinks. Rather than reframing all the other parts yourself, you can build a meta–part that recognizes this and says «Hey, you are doing this because you love this guy. Do you remember the first time you fell in love with him? Do you recall what that was like? The way you are trying to get him to treat you well isn't working. Do you remember what you did then? What else could you do? What does Janie do with her husband that works?» The meta–part goes into some way of generating alternatives: it provides ways for them to get what they really want. At specific times it says «Go in and change your behavior and get out of this loop; you've been here before and it has never worked. Arguing is not going to get you what you hope it will, and in order for you to argue, it must be really important. It must be important enough to change what you are doing.»

Man: I'm struck by that phrase «important enough.» I know it's important intuitively, and it has already been emphasized a couple of times, but can you explain what makes it so powerful?

It's a presupposition. It presupposes that this is more important than the other. If I go «Look, you are tall enough to reach that glass," the implication is that you are taller than I am. If I say to a kid «You are strong enough to stand up for yourself now," that presupposes that there was a time when he wasn't, but he is now. If I say «You are old enough to pay your own way," it presupposes that she wasn't at some time, but now she is and she hasn't recognized it. «You want this because it's important. And that means it must be important enough for you to do these other things.»

This is a great pattern to use in couple therapy. The couple is arguing and shouting «I'm right!» So you say «You're arguing because X, Y, and Z is very important to you. But is it important enough for you to consider other ways of communicating that might work better than arguing?» It's a great double–bind. If it's not really important, then they wouldn't argue in the first place, and they can stop now. If it is important, then it's important enough to try something else that might work, since what they're doing now isn't working. All the power behind being «right» gets channeled into new behavior.

In one couple I worked with, every time her husband would give her what she asked for, she would want more. She knew that she shouldn't, but she was dissatisfied and that made him crazy. He used to offer her things, but he didn't much anymore. She had a part whose primary intention was to get him to reassure her that he still loved her. What that part was doing wasn't working very well. I decided to build a part to help it: an ally. Any time she began to have doubts, this new part would come into action. This ally reframed the reassurance part on an ongoing basis. Whenever she had doubts, the ally said «Look, is it important to be reassured?» «Yes.» «Well, good. Is it important enough for you to find out what you can do to reassure him that you love him?»

This will result in a much broader behavioral change than simply giving her other ways to feel reassured. The ally will get her to do many things with her husband that don't get reassurance at the moment, but will result in her being reassured spontaneously at other times, which is what she really wants. You can't directly get somebody to reassure you spontaneously. But you can behave in ways that will eventually get it for you spontaneously at other times. A meta–part can be a good way of doing that.

Woman: I'm trying to relate this to the six–step model, which would say «Find out what need the present behavior that you don't like is satisfying, and find a new behavior that would better satisfy the need.»

Yes, that's the six–step model. One way to think about such «problems» is as if every behavior serves a need. Or you can assume that a problem behavior has nothing to do with their needs; it's just a byproduct of achieving some other outcome. That would also lead you to use the six–step model.

The difference between when the six–step model is particularly useful and when building parts is particularly useful is the difference between building parts that stop things and building parts that do things. With the six–step model you usually start out with some behavior you don't like and get new choices so that you no longer use the unwanted behavior. That's using reframing in order to stop something. The situations where building a part is most appropriate are those in which a person wants a part that does something: he wants to generate certain desired behaviors, and he is not doing it. When people ask for a part that stops something, then the six–step model, the secondary gain model, is going to be much more appropriate.

Man: How about building a part that differentiates between professional relationships and personal friendships? College professors who lecture at you when you are chatting could use a part like that.

Yeah, I can think of some people who could use that.

Man: How about a part that will give more flexibility to a person who has a lot of polarities?

Well, you have to be more specific about what you mean. You're being very general. What you're thinking of may be really groovy, but you have to be careful about how you describe it, because we've got this other human that we're going to install it in. Does this mean that he is going to become tolerant of having his parts fight with one another? What do you mean?

Man: Let's say the person has a polarity response to situations involving groups of people; you develop a part that will allow the flexibility for that person to listen.

Oh, you mean the ability not to have the polarity response. If you do that, you have to consider the possible secondary gain. If he always has a polarity response, is there some positive function? There may or may not be. The nice thing about your example is that if something is that overgeneralized in behavior, very often you can just build a part that listens to lectures and no other part in him will object to that, because there is no secondary gain to not listening in that context.