Can a Young Person's Mischief Make Trouble For a Problem
By David Epston
May 2, 2011
DRAFT – DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF AUTHOR

What often beguiles and delights parents most in regard to their young people is what is referred to as the making of mischief. By the same token, young people seem exalted by their mischief and exhilarated by adults' responses to their making of it. The mischief I am referring to here is a particular brand of play in which children lose themselves in fantasy and imagination, into which adults are sometimes invited.  However, much of this play is also conducted in play spaces from which parents are excluded and in which children seek privacy.   Some of the most remarkable examples of such private play spaces, although they may be shared with siblings, friends or classmates, are referred to as 'paracosms' which are virtually intact imaginary worlds with their own geography, history and language.(references). It is hard to know which proportion of play parents are privy too. Adams discusses the degree to which parents and adults can access such play for which we are using the generic descriptive term 'mischief':
"Empathy with children's worlds should not be impossible to achieve. After all, every reader of this book was once a child themselves.  However, the processes of growing older…..all lead to an inevitable distancing and detachment from their own childhood(24)"...By becoming increasingly aware of the types of worlds and the impact they have on children, adults will be better placed to understand children enabling them to see these worlds as children see them.”(24/5)  Adams, Kate(2010), Unseen Worlds: Looking Through the Lens of Childhood, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Mischief Makers as Pranksters
Parents most often easily distinguish between mischief when it has been made and unruly or frankly undesirable misconduct. Mischief, from the parent's point of view, seems to emerge from a blend of the imagination in full flight, fascination, merriment and irreverence on the part of a young person. Perhaps such irreverence arises from the young person's as yet unfamiliarity with what should be revered. Such mischief can take many forms but we will be concentrating on those that have the same elements of a prank, which perhaps mature with age in to what comes to be known as a practical joke.  Such mischief is made up without a great deal of obvious parental scaffolding or coaching, although they often support it from the wings.  
Very often parents are caught by surprise or they feign surprise as they are most often the recipients of such mischief and for that reason, their delight is spontaneous and infectious.  Such young people can come to be known for their mischief; unlike misdeeds, most parents find it easy to report such stories about their young people in a prideful manner.  The intention of their stories is not to show their children off as much as to amuse their listeners.  And if these stories abound, such young people come to be well know for their mischief and because of the entertainment associated with such stories, relatives and family friends often seek these young people out for further accounts eg. ‘have you got up to any mischief lately’?  Perhaps mischief is one of the first arenas of a young person's life in which s/he is acknowledged separately from her/his parents in that s/he has usually played a trick on them. Such mischief might be considered as invented by the young person rather than on loan for parents.
 
However, when a Problem has engaged a young person and his/her family, mischief and the high jinks associated with it are rarely on anyone's agenda.  It is set to one side as inappropriate and out of place to the serious matter of the getting down to the business of the Problem.  It is regarded as frivolous and irrelevant to the matter at hand.  And even more so, if the family refers their young person or is referred to a professional practitioner or agency, mischief making is seen to have no place whatsoever in such venues.  Their intention is to seek a remedy and mischief is never considered to part and parcel of that.
A Proposal for Making Mischief but at the Problem's Expense
What if we were to consider extrapolating the young person's mischief from its familiar context of family play to venues conventionally established to diagnose and treat children's Problems.  And we sought to change the status of the young person as sole operator of the mischief and instead mobilized everyone to engage the Problem in the same mischievous spirit for the purpose of hoodwinking it.  However, as this spirit in aligned with the most enthralling imaginative work a young person has been known to get up to, it is likely that s/he may be in the forefront of any such expressions.  It is expected however that such expressions are unlikely to be thought to be either appropriate to or out of order in a consultation with a professional practitioners. For these reasons, it will be incumbent on the therapist to promote the elevation of 'mischief making' in professional or agency venues.  Here two more participants join in the mischief- one willingly eg. the therapist and perhaps the other unwittingly eg. the Problem who becomes so personified that at some time might in fact be invited to join in the meetings one way or another(see Epston and Marsten, IJNTCW, 2010-1). We will have more to say about how the Problem puts in an appearance.
The therapist may have to contribute considerably at the start of such discussions in order to convey to all parties the potential virtues of mischief making in regard to the Problem. But the young person predictably will assume more and more leadership as s/he feels more at ease in making mischief at a site s/he previously believed would be the last place in the world for such antics. Most often the young person would have restricted their expressions of mischief making to his/her home or immediate surroundings.
Here the Problem is first approached by all concerned to figure out the Problem's tricks and the means by which the Problem has been playing its own brand of mischief on the young person and his/her family.  This often renders the Problem more of a match for their son/daughter as it gets 'taken apart' in to a series of often interrelated tricks at both the young person's and parents' expense. Often a distinction can readily be drawn between the benevolent mischief of the young person, which intends merriment and surprise with the malevolent mischief of the Problem. At times, those tricks that were considered by the young person to be 'treats' of some kind or other under scrutiny turn out to be quite the opposite. In fact, some of those tricks that had the pretense of a treat come to be known as  'dirty tricks' eg. ‘Do you think that is a clean or a dirty trick to play on a kid?’ 
Consideration can now given to how the Problems’ tricks, that up until now may have been thought to be treats by the young person, can be overturned by mischievous means through which the Problem may find itself outwitted by the combined wit of its new antagonists- the young person in league with their family and the therapist.  The spirit of imaginative play is brought to bear in order to hoodwink the Problem once it can no longer 'pull the wool' over a young person's eyes.  As this spirit inheres in the most enthralling imaginative play the young person has been known to get up to, it is very likely that s/he will soon willingly and enthusiastically embrace it. S/he is certainly now metaphorically 'playing on their own home ground' and under such circumstances, may be a good if not more than a match for the Problem.  But now the spirit of such mischief pervades the conversations of all concerned.
Various Possible Engagements That Might Be Taken Up With The Problem:
1) Playing a joke on the problem: If it can be considered that the problem has merely been playing a joke with relatively benign intentions and shouldn't be taken too seriously, then the young person can be asked if s/he thinks s/he should play a joke back on the Problem in the same mischievous spirit eg "it is just joking!"
2) Playing a trick on the problem/out tricking(out witting)  the problem:  Here the Problem is deemed to have gone much further than a joke and has advanced to a trick.  Now tricks can have mild to rather serious consequences for anyone who is subject to the trick.  No matter as it allows for the trick to be countermanded by a cleverer trick to 'out trick' or 'out wit' the Problem.  This calls in to play both seeing through the Problem's trick as just that and secondly the application of considerable collective wit to constitute a 'counter trick' capable of revoking it.  
3) i) Proving the Problem wrong or ii)  proving the Problem has got the wrong kid or a case of mistaken identity:  In both cases, it becomes established that either the Problem was misinformed about the young person as the reputation it has established for him/her in various social contexts are contradicted by how his/her parents 'know' their son/daughter.  The version of their child they champion and the young person consents to is often sufficient grounds 'to prove the Problem wrong'.  However, to do so, the young person will have to first renounce the Problem and denounce how s/he has come to be known by way of the 'reputation' spread by the Problem.  The 'proving' the Problem 'wrong' often proves the young person and the parents' right.  In those instances in which the young person has been so misrepresented and even defamed by the Problem, a case can be made that the Problem just plain 'got the wrong kid' or has 'mistaken their identity' for another young person. 
4) Trick or treating the Problem; If under scrutiny, it is found that the Problem, despite having promised the young person a treat, has  in fact taken advantage of the young person's innocence or guilelessness and tricked them, then it would be justifiable for the young person and his/her family to do the same back-'to give back as good as they have got'.
5) Proving the problem a bad arguer and yourself a good arguer: If it is found that the Problem has got to the point of arguing with the young person about the kind of person they are and that the Problem's arguments are at considerable odds with the kind of person the parent argue for, then the engagement can be as to who is the 'best arguer' and has the 'best arguments'.  The question can be asked to the young person- 'who do you think knows you better, the Problem or your parents?'  And furthermore- 'who is getting you in to trouble and who wants you to get out of trouble?'  This engagement allows for the young person to survey the opposing 'arguments' about who s/he is and of what in fact, they are capable and take either side.
6) If the problem isn't going to play fair, why should I?   The engagement is undertaken in some ethical realm of what the parents and young person consider to be 'fair play'.  Here the Problem is put another scrutiny as to its 'fairness': 'has the Problem jumped to a conclusion about you just because you messed up once given that in many other places in your life you are doing pretty well with your life?  Has the Problem ever considered what your parents know about you?  Is the Problem biased against you?  Are your parents biased in your favour?'  If everyone comes to the conclusion that the Problem can be indicted for 'unfair play', the young family can decide to 'play unfairly' too or stick to 'fair play' in spite of the unlikeliness for the Problem to engage on the same ethical terms.
7) Getting  your own back on the Problem:  This engages the young person is discussions around redress, reparation and at times revenge.  Revenge is often taken on the grounds that the young person insists s/he 'wouldn't want this to happen to another kid".  Such revenge often takes the forms of 'blowing the Problem's cover', their willingness to document 'the tricks the Problem can get up to' or be available as a consultant to another 'troubled' young person should such an occasion arise.
 8) Just what kind of person is the Problem?  This engages the young person in speculating about the 'psychology' of the Problem and what it's motives may have been in going to so much trouble in order to get the young person in 'trouble'. This may seem too far fetched for some and for others, the questions might take the form of- "Say the Problem was like a person, what would you think it's motives may have been in going to such lengths to give you the 'bad kid' reputation you and the School Principal have told me it has given you at your school?"
9) Hasn't the problem got something better to do with its life than doing x to me/you?  This engagement can take place and is done so in a very jocular manner.  Once again, the young person and his/her family are asked to consider what else the Problem might get up if it were to 'think better' of the young person and even more so to realize 'what it is up against now that the young person and his parents have teamed up and as a family are 'all for one and one for all’.  Some thought is given to the kind of work the Problem might be now suited for or whether it should consider an early retirement.
10) Do you ever wonder if the problem is jealous/envious of you/your son/daughter?  Here the therapist asks speculative queries of the young person and his/her family.  The verb 'wonder' is brought in to play here to increase the range of responsiveness on the part of the young person and his/her parents.
 11) If the problem is a killjoy and has tried to kill your joys, do you think you should teach it how to have fun and enjoy life? or not?  This engagement comes to the conclusion that perhaps instead of contesting the Problem, the young person and his/her family might consider introducing it to their ways of living eg. Perhaps having fun and enjoying life rather than being a killjoy. This can lead to some of the most farfetched and wildly funny conversations once the young people get in to the spirit of generosity and helpfulness.  The young person then considers mentoring the Problem.  I have found parents taking the greatest joy overseeing their son/daughter's engagement to 'coach' the Problem on say 'how to have a fun life'.
12) Do you think you might become a problem for the problem? This engagement is more vexatious whereby the young person is invited to speculate if s/he were a Problem for the Problem, how would s/he go about this?  And would they make real trouble or a modicum of trouble for the Problem?  This generally 'turns the tables' on who is the Problem and who is 'in trouble' or 'troubled'.
13) Do you think if your problem sought your help, you might teach it how to be a good problem?  This engagement is similar to 11) but here the Problem isn't a mandated client of the young person but instead seeks the young person out and appeals for their assistance. "Say the Problem had second thoughts about giving young people a hard time and turned to you for advise on how to be sensitive to friends, animals and insects like the stories your mum and dad have told me about you, would you be willing to lend the Problem a hand to change it's ways?"  “Can I be the Problem and ask you some questions that the Problem might like to ask you to ‘turn itself around’?
 Assessment of Wrong-doing
This assessment of the Problem's 'wrong-doing' takes place especially in the domain of what White referred to as "negative identity conclusions", conclusions which perhaps not all but some parties have unfortunately reached.  We are using identity in the above in the following way: 

"Identify is the narratives we weave around the features of ourselves that matter most to us.  What matters most to us form the relatively stable points around which we construct narratives that constitute the sense I make of myself.  But my identity is also constituted by the stories other people construct around the 'things' about me that seem most important to them.  Who we can be is often a matter of who others take us to be.(Nelson, 2001).
 
Perhaps it is fair to say that the younger we are, the more we depend on the 'stories other people construct around the 'things' about me that seem most important to them".  That is why in this practice we use the notion of reputation so frequently to imply 'how others have come to know you' who have the authority to impress upon others the kind of person you are and may become.  Such arbiters are often teachers, sports coaches, uncle and aunts, neighbours, professionals and family friends. And often, it is only when the young person is regarded to have a Problem that s/he starts becoming aware that they can no longer be so disaffected or dismissive of the concerns of others.  But this practice is not engaged to seek a confession or admission on the young person's part that they are wrong; instead, the critical and moral engagement with the Problem has to do with an entirely different tack- the inquiry concerns itself whether the Problem is 'wrong' about the young person and subsequently, whether the young person has been 'wronged' along with the dignity of his/her family.(see Epston and Marsten, 2010):

(i)	Has the Problem given you the reputation of being a certain kind of kid?
(ii) Do you go along with that reputation or do you think you are a different kind of kid?
(iii) (to parents) Do you go along with that reputation or do you know think the Problem doesn't know him/her as well as you do?
(iv) Do you wonder if the Problem doesn't know you well enough to allege that you are a 'bad kid' or 'trouble'?  Do you consider these allegations are justified or unjustified?
(v) (to parents) Do you wonder if you know your son/daughter better than the Problem and for that reason consider the Problem's allegations of the kind of kid you son/daughter is are unwarranted and perhaps even defamatory?
(vi) Do you have any thoughts at all what got in to the Problem to try to have people believe that you deserve a 'bad kid' reputation? 
(vii) Do you think it has got a grudge against you and your family?
(viii) Do you wonder if the Problem did this as some sort of joke at your expense? Do you consider that a bad or a good joke at your expense?
(ix) Do you consider the Problem has some mean or spiteful reasons for trying to play such a bad joke at your and your family's expense?
(x) Is it possible that the Problem is envious of your 'fun lovingness'(or any other description derived from the 'wonderfulnesses' interviewing)?
(xi) Do you think it is trying to make you out to be silly in order to embarrass you?
(xii) Do you think the Problem really believes this about you(that which constitutes the bad reputation)?  
(xiii) (to parents) Do you believe his/her reputation or do you have some stories that prove quite the opposite?
Here a rivalry is promoted between two versions of the young person: the insinuations and allegations of the Problem about what kind of kid the young person truly is and the 'positive goodness'(see Lightfoot-Lawrence) associated with this young person and genealogically linked to his/her family, community or culture.  Such versions are not equal in matters of prominence, prestige, legitimacy, standing and history.  Problems, given that more often than not quickly fall in to very prestigious professional realms, can be very presumptuous and jump to their conclusions on the evidence before them.  But then again, such 'evidence' can leave out "the things about me that matter most to them" and in this case, we are referring to the young person's parents, extended family and community. Can that which matters most to them(parents/family/community) be taken up as also "things about me(the young person)  that seem important to them"?  
We are proposing here rival structures of meaning, each of which vies for the allegiance of the young person and their family, that provide the interpretive means for a young person to withdraw themselves from docile submission to their 'reputation' and instead engage in critique and perhaps at some time to respond by way of moral indignation. Given the rivalrous relationship between these two structures of meaning, to ally yourself with one version destines you to  actively choose against  the other.  Here the young person might renounce this identity and attempt to align him/herself more closely to their parents’ preferred identity, the outlines of which have been adumbrated by them throughout the 'wonderfulnesses' inquiries. The cultivation of such interpretive capabilities on the young person's part allows him/her to become a productive source of knowledge, rather than merely a recipient of others' knowledges.
 Redressive Or Reparative Actions
Should the young person decide to refute the reputation the Problem has spread around about him/her, discussions can talk over the prospects of redress or even reparation.  If the young person decides this in order, therapist and parents can assist with thinking up appropriate redressive or reparative actions s/he might take to 'prove' the Problem wrong about them.
(i) Do you have any ideas how you might set the Problem straight about you(the kind of person you are or intend to become)?  so that the Problem would have to admit it had got you wrong and your parents were right about you(the kind of person you are or intend to become?)
(ii) Would it give you any satisfaction to put some egg on the Problem's face?
(iii) Knowing the Problem as you do, is it very likely that the Problem would face(own) up to putting people wrong about you and try to set the record straight about you? Or do you think you may have to do this yourself, perhaps with some assistance from us?  (to parents) Would you be willing to lend Julie a hand to set everyone right at the school that she is not 'trouble' but Julie?
(iv) Do you think to set others right, you might have to find some ways to have them know who you really are?  Can you think of any ways that you are not the kind of person the Problem has made you out to be?
(iv) Do you think it owes you and your family an apology? Should you and your family demand an apology to repair any damage to your reputation as a 'good kid' and to it as a 'good family'?
Here the young person goes from being disaffected with the Problem to assuming some sort of 'critical' stance which engages him/her in to some sort of ethical debate about what kind of 'kid' s/he is, comparing and contrasting the Problem's version and the family's 'wonderfulnesses' version. And s/he now becomes a very interested party in considering what the Problem has brought about not only for him/her but also for the sake of their family's 'reputation'. This often inclines him/her to become very amenable to considering the negative effects the Problem is having on others and their relationships with them.  This can lead to a indignation, often of a moral kind in which s/he first refutes the Problem's version by expressing concern to align themselves more with the 'wonderfulnesses' their Parents have described and storied and their legacies that link such 'wonderfulnesses' to parents, their extended family and family traditions, community and culture.  This moral righteousness underwrites many of the remarkable 'turnarounds' reported by families in which the young person without much further adieu both denounces and renounces the Problem(see Putting Pressure on the Problem....)
Various Constructions of the Problem's Version
Often the Problems wrong-doing can be considered as either mischief as its general strategy with pranks or trickery as its more specific tactics rather than a serious offense.  This leaves the option open for the young person and his/her family to take offense and refute the Problem or take the attitude that 'two can play at the same game' and make mischief back for the Problem. This often is far more appealing to the young person that the more formal means of 'refutation' eg confessions and formal apologies.  This will engage the young person who may already be well known for making mischief, although in other contexts this may have been far more endearing than the current 'trouble' the Problem has got the young person into.  This allows for counter-tricks by turning the Problem's trickery against the Problem.  Pranks, 'calling it's bluff', and 'catching it out and telling it off' and metaphorical trip-lines all can be considered as viable means of replying and responding to the Problem's malevolent mischief.  All of these are well within the bounds of young people's ordinary practices and all certainly carry with them frank mischievousness .  We would expect such an attitude has far more appeal to young people than manualized 7 step approaches to the vicissitudes of life. 
 
The Change of Heart: Out-Tricking the Problem Rather than Being Duped by It
This immediately sets the scene for conspiratorial and amusing conversations which parents, now having registered their young peoples' change of heart in regard to the Problem, enthusiastically join in with a similar spirit. They no longer are required to forewarn, reproach or chastise their children as to the consequences of such a Problem.  Instead, they now seem only too willing to allow their young person to keep in the lead with them coaching from the proverbial sidelines.  Such conversations often commence with an analysis of what the Problems' tricks are and how it goes about setting them up within the young person's life. 
(i) Do you have any idea at all what the Problem's Tricks are? Has it tried this old favourite- the Problem tells you this is good for your life even when those who love you and care about you have the opposite point of view?
(ii) How does the Problem go about Tricking you into x?  What does it take advantage of to trick you?
(iii) Where and when does the Problem go about Tricking you into x?
(iv) Does the Problem trick you when you are just about to nod off at night, especially after you have had a very tiring day?
(iv) Does the Problem take advantage of you when you are busy playing and looking the other way?  When you are on guard or your dog is on guard, can the Problem get away with such a trick?
(v) Does it wait to you are on your own?  Would it dare show up around everyone is sitting down for dinner on Friday evenings?
(vi) In general, does it take advantage of you when you are down?  

4) The History of the Young Person as a 'Trickster
Here questions are asked to establish the young person's history of and 'reputation' for being a maker of mischief.  We would imagine that such stories are very endearing and generally amusing for all concerned.  Care is lavished over detailing the specifics of the skills and know-how that are implicit in the young person not only thinking up the mischief but carrying it out often undetected.  Once again, a search is undertaken for 'legacies' of playing tricks and making mischief and are often found in the pasts of the parents, aunts or uncles or grandparents.  There are few families without someone who was not known in such a way.
 
(i) (To parents) Can you ever recall a trick s/he played on you or someone else?
(ii) (To parents) When you think about it now, does that 'tricksterism' come out of the blue or can you think of anyone and their tricksterisms he takes after?
(iii) (To young person) I know you did x, but did you consider you were playing a trick on your Dad?
(iv) (To young person) When you think of yourself as a 'trickster', have you ever played any tricks on your friends or anyone else other than your mum or dad?  Did you call what we are calling 'making mischief' and 'trickery' as just "having fun" or "mucking around"? 

5) Willingness to Turn his Trickery to Set the Problem Straight
Everyone can now engage in elaborate and considered discussions about the 'rights and wrongs' of turning his and perhaps his 'family tradition' of trickery against the Problem to redeem his reputation and restore the dignity of his family. Although they often retain the light-heartedness of the above, a tone of seriousness is also brought to bear.  This seriousness has to do with relating this decision to what matters to his family on the one hand and what matters to the young person on the other.  Often by now, there is some reconciliation but the young person could still proceed on behalf of a different agenda than that of his parents.  From our experience, this is rarely the case.
(i) If the Problem seems to have no qualms about tricking you, do you have any qualms about tricking it?
(ii) Do you think it is best to let the Problem know "that two can play the same game"?
(iii) Do you think if the Problem had known your trickery goes way back to when you weren't even at school yet, it might have had second thoughts about trying to 'pull all these fast ones' on you?

6) Conspiring to Plan a Campaign of Counter-Tricks
Here good humour returns and the conversation can take very irreverent tones as it directs everyone’s creativities to the mischief making that may be required to counter the Problem's mischief.  The family usually decides to give the Problem a taste of its own medicine.
 
(i) Do you want to plan your trick ahead of the Problem’s trick and go it alone or would you rather wait until it tricks you and then out-trick it in return?
(ii) Do you just want to call it’s bluff?  Or do you want to give back as good or better you got?
(iii) Does anyone have any tricks up their sleeves that just might out-trick the Problem?
Not surprisingly such conversations are very light-hearted compared to the far more heavy-hearted conversations that everyone had engaged the Problem in at the beginning of these meetings and perhaps for some time before that.  The therapist does not sit back here but plays his/her part in improvising ‘out-trickery’ if the conversation falters at all.  For it is likely at the very outset of such conversations that the therapist has been party to far more out-tricking of Problems than either the parents or young person have.  These might take the form of rhetorical questions- ‘have you ever thought of putting up a trip-line around your bed so the Worries will trip over it when they come and try to make your sweet dreams over into nightmares?  If so, do you have any ideas how you might like to go about setting this snare for the Problem?’  Another initiative a therapist can take is by extrapolating from a historical ‘counter-trick from an archive in a ‘consulting your consultants’ format.  “One young man your age came up with a trick that really made me and his parents laugh almost until we cried.  Do you want to hear what it was?  He gave me his permission to tell anyone around his age who was looking for a counter-trick?  Tell me, does his counter-trick for his Problem give you any ideas of your own to put against the tricks of your Problem?”
Conclusion
As much as anything else, mischief is a far more likely attitude for a young person to lead the way and their parents to follow in engaging any sort of Problem.  Here the conversations are 'knowledge near' as opposed to professionally 'knowledge far'. As such, the young person is playing on his/her 'own home ground' and consequently has a distinct advantage than 'playing' on the professional's home ground.  S/he can bring to bear in their engagement with the Problem that which has endeared them to their family.  Of course, the Problem may very well have had quite the opposite effect and intruded on their affection for their child.  Also from my experience, the resolutions of such Problems seem to have much more endurance and the young person seems to have the moral stamina to persist with the elaborate means required to take up any redressive or reparative actions in response to any harm done by the Problem.

References:
Cohen, D. and MacKeith, S., The Development of Imagination: the Private Worlds of Childhood, New York, Routledge; Root-Bernstein, Michelle, Imaginary Worldplay as an indicator of Creative Giftedness. In the International Handbook on Giftedness, ed. by Larissa Shavininia, Springer, 2009. 
Epston, D & David Marsten (2010) What doesn’t the problem know about your son or daughter? Providing the conditions for restoration of a family’s dignity. The International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, Vol 1, p. 30-36.
 Morrison, D.C(ed). Organizing Early Experience, Imagination and Cognition in childhood(1998), New York, Baywood; 
Singer, d. and Singer, J.(1992) The House of Make-Believe: Children's Play and the Developing Imagination, Harvard University Press)