Fam Proc 23:20-21, 1984POST-MORTEM: MARK TWAIN DID DIE IN 1910STEVEDE SHAZERI have been asked to comment on Stewart and Anderson's comment on my paper, and I have given various options a lotof thought.1. I could cooperate with Carlos Sluzki and fight with Stewart and Anderson. But I rejected that idea.2. I could cooperate with Stewart and Anderson and fight with them, but the paper speaks for itself, so I rejected thatidea.3. I thought about describing a research project of ours that suggests a high level of cooperating between BFTCtherapists and our clients. But that's another paper (4), and so I rejected that.4. I thought about an essay on how one's point of view determines (at least in part) what happens next and the power offrames and labels. But that's another paper too, and so I rejected that.5. I thought about an essay on the limited pragmatic value of sacred cows but decided to save that for the next book, so Irejected that.6. I thought about describing Axelrod and Hamilton's work on "The Evolution of Cooperation" (2) and Hofstadter'sthinking about their work (6), but that's part of another paper or a chapter in the next book, so I rejected that too.7. I thought about an essay rejecting Stewart and Anderson's either/or dichotomy between pragmatics and theory becauseI find it hard to think about what I do without thinking about my "theory" about what is useful to do. But the not very usefulsplits among "theory"/"practice"/"research" are too wide for a short comment to address with any meaning, except to makethe basic point that these three "things" are but three faces of the same activity. Again, another whole paper and not just acomment, so I put that idea aside too.8. I thought about how we all know that the earth circles the sun, and the moon circles the earth, and we have known thisfor centuries. But the language still reflects another world-view: The sun rises and sets and so does the moon.9. I thought about publishing my unpublished review of Anderson and Stewart's book (1) as a comment on theircomment.10. I thought about describing some of the pragmatic consequences of the Death of Resistance that have alreadyappeared (3) or that are developing, but I rejected that idea because the essay ("theoretical" notions) needs to stand on itsown.11. I thought about redrawing the distinction between "difficulties" (the one damn thing after another of life) and"problems" (the same damn thing over and over again), but Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch (7) did it so well that myeffort would be simply redundant.Finally, I took all of my options into consultation with the rest of the team. Carefully I explained what I saw as mychoices, and I explained my confusion about the most useful approach to take. The team put their heads together andsuggested I publish the struggle I went through as the most useful thing I could do in this situation. Even though I stronglydisagreed, I followed our group mores because resistance is, after all, only a concept, no matter how reified the concept hasbecome. In a way, the situation is similar to the complaint made to Picasso, reported by Foss (5), that his portrait ofGertrude Stein did not look like her.Picasso is said to have replied: "Never mind, it will." Once we have come to accept Picasso's way of seeing, havecome to accept his rules of personality projection onto canvas (that linear sketches, for example, could be used torefer to things like subjects of portraits that were formerly represented by curved lines: Cubism), we too will in partsee Miss Stein as Picasso drew her; interpret her, if you like, accordingly. We see the world accordingly as ourexisting conventions (categories, projection, rules) enable us to see it. Believing is seeing (italics added). [p. 235]Regardless of the usefulness (for some) of the concept of resistance, the concept may or may not be part of any particulartherapist's map-making tools. Either a map of London's bus system or a map of the Underground system will frequentlyallow the traveler to get to the same place by different routes, even though the details of each map are strikingly different.Saying that (the reified concept of) resistance exists is like saying to the tube rider that "a good map must include all thecrossstreets" and therefore the subway map is invalid even though it gets you where you want to go.I, for one, will let Stewart and Anderson walk around the city considering the people, the cross streets, the cars, and thebuses as dangers to be dealt with and overcome. I will take the tube which gets me where I want to go in a smoother,quicker fashion._____________________________________________________________________________________________________________1R.I.P.REFERENCES1. Anderson,C. and Stewart,S., Mastering Resistance, New York, Guilford, 1983.2. Axelrod,R. and Hamilton,W.D., "The Evolution of Cooperation," Science, 212, 1390-1396, 1981.3. De Shazer,S., Patterns of Brief Family Therapy, New York, Guilford, 1982.4. De Shazer,S., Berg,I., La Court,M., Lipchik,E., Molnar,A. and Nunnally,E., "On Cooperating," unpublishedmanuscript, 1983.5. Foss,L., "Art as Cognitive: Beyond Scientific Realism," Philosophy of Science, 38, 234-250, 1971.6. Hofstadter,D., "Computer Tournaments of the Prisoner's Dilemma Suggest How Cooperation Evolves," Sci. Am.,248, 16-26, 1983.7. Watzlawick,P., Weakland,J. and Fisch,R., Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution,New York, Norton, 1974.Manuscript received August 10, 1983; Accepted August 30, 1983._____________________________________________________________________________________________________________2