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

If a part objects, I want you to ask «What is your function for me?» This time you don't care what the objection is. That's not the important part. You want to find out what it is that the objecting part does, what its job is, its function.

When you get that information, if it doesn't make sense to you that it would object to your having the new part, go ahead and ask it what, specifically, its objection is. Ask it how it thinks this new part is going to get in its way.

Let's say you decide «I'm going to install a part that teaches me how to hold my breath for an hour and a half.» Then you go inside and ask the question «Does any part object?» You get a «yes» so then you ask «What is your function for me? What do you do for me? What's your job?» The objecting part says «Well, I'm the part that keeps your heart beating.» If you can't consciously tie together how holding your breath for an hour and a half is going to interfere with the heart–beating part, then I suggest you ask. My guess is most of those connections will be obvious. But if they aren't, then ask.

The pencil and paper are for this step. So far each time I've used this model there have been at least eight or nine parts that object. Depending upon what part you are building, some of you may not have very many objections. When you go about installing a new part, the potential for it to get in another part's way is a lot greater than when you're just altering one part's behavior a little bit. There may be many, many parts that object to creating a new part. The more the merrier, because they are all going to become allies in the design process. Just make a complete list of the parts that object, and each one's function. You want to know if there are parts that object, and if so, what do they do? What's their job? Be thorough. Make sure you get all of them. Check each representational system for objections, to find out about all the Parts that object in any way. The objections will be the essence of making sure that the part you build is really graceful and works well. They will be the talents of the part that you are going to build… .

Lucy: I got six parts down.

OK, you've got six parts down. And you got all of their functions?

Lucy: Oh, no, I've just got the parts listed.

OK, I want you to find out what each one's function is. You say «Part number one, you objected? What do you do for me?» You don't ask «What is your objection?»; you ask «What's your function?» You want to know what each objecting part is in charge of. It's not that you have a part that says «All right, we're going to limit the orgasms here.» It's just that the objecting part is doing something else. When it considers the possibility that you would have a part that gets you to have orgasms more often, it says «Hey, I'm not so sure I want a part that does that.» Now, you might be able to install the new part anyway, and perhaps the part that objected wouldn't interfere with it at all. However, if we find out what its concern is, then we can build an even better part, and be sure that other parts won't object to it.

Lucy: So you want me to find out what each part's concern is?

Secondly. First I want you to know what its function is, what it's in charge of. If that doesn't give you an understanding of what its concern is about having this new part, then ask.

Lucy: I'm not sure if I understand. For instance, there is a part that doesn't want me to put pressure on my husband, and a part that doesn't want to give me what I want. Now would those be two parts?

OK, now, what's the function of the part that «doesn't want to give you what you want?» I'm sure that you don't have a part that just sits around and says «What can I keep from Lucy today?» It's got to be in charge of some other task. The question is «What is its job?» It may be a part that doesn't want you to have unrealistic expectations. All I want to know is what its function is, and what its concern is. If you do have a part that doesn't want you to have «unrealistic expectations," then you already know what its concern is. Its concern is that the new part isn't going to work and that you'll be disappointed. You don't have to worry about that one, because what we build will work. You want to know the function of each part that objects, and a little bit about what concerns it about having this new part around.

This new part that you want to build is going to influence your behavior. You want to know if there are other parts of you that object to it having existence in you. We want to know about every part that objects to the idea of having this new part. And we also want to know specifically what it is about having this part that concerns the other parts. That is very, very valuable information. We need to know that so that when we build the part, we can build one that is going to be satisfying to the total person, rather than just ramming something in and letting conflicts evolve. There are usually plenty of conflicts already; we don't need to build in more.

I've said nothing yet about actually installing these parts. So far we're just designing. The fifth step is what we call «satisfying well–formedness conditions.» The well–formedness condition of our design is going to be that no other parts object. We are going to take all of their concerns into account and modify the new part accordingly. We don't want to step on anybody's toes here except the conscious mind's. It's the only one who deserves it.

The fantasy that you had last time is the basis upon which those parts made their objections. You made up a fantasy, and a certain part went «Ugghh, boy, that's going to be hard.» Another part said «I don't want that!» Some other part said «If we do that, we won't be able to do this.» All the parts that had concerns based their objections on that fantasy. So now you're going to make a new fantasy. We now have a list of well–formedness conditions to use to modify the last fantasy and take into account all of the concerns of those other parts. Before you build the new fantasy I would like you to redefine your part so that it takes into account all of those concerns. This is the importance of the amount of time I spent on definition. For example, what were the functions of some of the parts that objected?

Teri: There was a part of me that said that if I maintained the weight I wanted, I might not be a therapist. I wouldn't want to do therapy; I'd want to be outside doing other things.

That was an objection?

Teri: Well, if I stay overweight, I'm comfortable doing what I do now, because I don't feel like doing much outside. But what is that part's function? Teri: To keep me the way I am.

No, that's not its function. If there's a part that says «Look, if you lose all this weight and maintain it, you're not going to want to do therapy," then you say «Well, OK, that's a possibility. What's your function?» If it says «Well, my function is to keep you the same» that's called «jive.» In this group we know that that's not a function, that's a behavior. What we're looking for is a positive function. You don't have a part whose function it is to keep you the same. You have a part that Wants to keep you the same so that X, Y and Z won't happen, or will happen. If you don't get functions, you're not going to be able to come up with a good set of well–formedness conditions.

Teri: For example, I wouldn't have much time alone with my husband.

OK, so there's a part whose function is to make sure that you spend time with your husband. And one way of carrying out that function is to do therapy, so you can hang out with him at work.

Teri: Right.

Now, that's a concern that makes sense. However, there are lots of ways to build in spending time with your husband. So the part of you that is going to maintain your weight is going to make sure that this part is very satisfied. It will build spending lots of time with your husband into the maintenance program. This now becomes part of the fantasy that you have to build. You don't become thin and run off, because this part isn't going to go for that.