This article discusses an approach to relational ethics in contemporary systemic practice. It explores the possibilities offered by traditions of moral philosophy in attending to problems from a relational ethics perspective. This includes a focus on relationships as a crucial element in the development and maintenance of a moral self and how couples and families construct an ethical platform together, both consciously and unconsciously; and also how relational ethics may inform ideas about the values-driven problems people present in therapy. Finally, it suggests how ethical responsibility and accountability can be constructed as relational responsiveness. Despite our associations with morality as judgmental and rule driven, moral conduct and decision-making can involve imaginative, creative and aesthetic possibilities.

The bioethics movement has long promulgated a model of ‘principled decision-making’ in which ethical dilemmas and conflicts between various rights, interests, and ethical principles are central. In many respects this movement has had a laudatory impact on health care and on health professionals, but we will also argue that the bioethical model of ethical analysis has important limitations. The model's theoretical orientation is discontinuous with the training and skills of health professionals, the manner in which health professionals conceptualise and solve problems that arise in a clinical setting, and the time constraints inherent in most clinical situations. As such, the model is not readily applicable to much of the day-to-day work of clinicians and, in particular, to the routine ethical questions and situations that arise in caring for patients. What we suggest is that the bioethical model does not take into account that health care professionals, as part of their daily work, encounter and manage difficult, often conflictual situations and that they do so by bringing to bear conceptual frameworks and therapeutic techniques that have, embedded within them, the ethical values and goals of their own fields, as well as established ways of dealing with problems and addressing competing priorities. We further argue that from a systems perspective, the bioethical model and the pragmatic, problem-focused ethical decision-making of clinicians operate on different levels of complexity; whereas the former is especially appropriate for situations that resist consensus or that raise significant issues of public policy, the latter serves as an effective framework in less difficult or complex situations that can be moved effectively toward consensus and closure.

How might we engage with the concept resilience in a world obsessed with the measurement and cataloguing of deficits and virtues alike; with predicting outcomes, producing certainty and the reification of stable identity? This article is based on a plenary address presented to the Australian Family Therapy Conference in 2009 and takes Deleuze's paraphrase of the 17th century philosopher, Spinoza as a point of departure from common sense views of identity. Can resilience be possessed by some as a personal quality enhancing their coping skills or might resilience be a vital aspect of living which passes through us? Perhaps resilience bounces back towards us and enables the unsettling of dogmatic beliefs and a stable sense of identity. Enquiry might then shift from the moral; What kind of person am I? How should I live? towards an ethical position of wonder; What else might there be? What might I be capable of? This article invites an ethical exploration of desire, its capture and of resistance and explores the politics of identity; illustrated with men's journeys of struggle with violence, sexuality and belonging and the discovery of ethics and generous forms of love in the face of adversity.

In this article we explore the role of differentiation of self in facilitating forgiveness in the context of couple and family relationships. Differentiation is defined from the Bowen perspective as the ability to connect with others without being excessively emotionally reactive to the ebb and flow inherent in all significant relationships (being able to connect to others yet also being able to self-regulate). Forgiveness is described as the releasing of an emotional injury via a complex psychological and relational process that is less an act of will than a discovery or possibility through understanding and empathy. Differentiation of self is related to emotional intelligence and empathy. The developmental and relational benefits of such are illustrated and discussed. A rationale for viewing differentiation and forgiveness in a contextual, historical, and relational attachment paradigm is suggested. Relevant clinical cases illustrate the dynamics of differentiation and forgiveness as discovery in the context of an understanding and empathic relational environment.

This article concerns the use of language in both therapy and supervision, and how it contributes to the necessary risk-taking that will be a part of therapists' and supervisors' repertoires. The focus will be on my own examples in both roles, and will refer to both successes and failures, while questioning the usefulness of either concept. Within a postmodern paradigm, and influenced by thinkers including Foucault and Bakhtin as well as systemic clinicians, I will examine the use of language (including in cross-cultural settings where risks can sometimes be amplified) and of humour and self while exploring the meanings of identity. I contend that all relationships contain some element of risk and the ways in which we create a safe enough context, through the uses of language as well as nonlinguistic means, are the crucial elements in our endeavours as supervisors and therapists. I favour the idea that therapy is more of an art than a science and that this is most exemplified in the graceful use of language by which we strive to engage rather than alienate people. The article may be considered by some as being useful advice, and by others as a risk too far, such is the controversial nature of language, which highlights the importance of relationships and context.

The treatment of challenging behaviour in intellectual disabilities has evolved dramatically since the 1950s, from a reliance on psychopharmacological restraint and operant conditioning to a multifaceted support plan that recognises the communicative intent of the client alongside their need for meaningful community participation. In recent years there has also been an increasing recognition of the critical role of family relationships in the maintenance and amelioration of challenging behaviour, as well as in attempts to integrate the fields of family therapy and applied behaviour analysis. The aim of this article is to describe a model of tertiary consultation that draws on the skills of systemic family therapy to assist clinicians who might be struggling with responding to challenging behaviour in settings characterised by complex and ‘stuck’ mediation problems. This model applies principles of reflective practice to assist such clinicians to develop a sophisticated understanding of the nature of interactions and relationships in the client's life, a critical prerequisite to the application of behavioural intervention. A detailed description of the model and a case study will be provided.