In 1980 a paper was published in Family Process which profoundly altered family therapy practice around the world. ‘Hypothesizing-Circularity-Neutrality: Three Guidelines for the Conductor of the Session’, was based on the Milan group’s research individuating and elaborating principles and methods that we have found highly productive in interviewing the family’. It was a reply to practitioners who had responded with some confusion to the group’s publication ‘Paradox and Counterparadox’ which was an attempt to explicate the application of ideas derived from cybernetics and communication theory on the grounds that a family should be viewed as a ‘self-regulating system which controls itself according to rules formed over a period of time through a process of trial and error’.
The principles of hypothesizing, circularity and neutrality described in the paper allowed practitioners to understand, adopt and experiment with an approach which rapidly gained worldwide admiration, critique, and intrigue.
That was Forty-Five Years Ago
Over the intervening years both the original authors and others have adapted the original concepts, most notably Gianfranco Cecchin who revised the notion of neutrality to that of curiosity. This was a direct response to accusations that neutrality implied a position of ‘not taking responsibility when necessary.’
The most recent paper published in 2025 by a group of authors at the Milanese Centre of Family Therapy, Milan, Italy addresses the current identity of the Milan Approach. Work continues to be premised on the idea of the observing system and the three directives, hypothesizing, circularity, and curiosity guide practice. The authors aim to represent questions and doubts about an ongoing evolution of practice and explore the premises that ‘allow us to be flexible enough to keep in tune with current events and to address social issues that are of political relevance, in order to adapt to cultural changes.’
How Do They Define Themselves?
The ideas which came from a ‘creative and participatory’ session were based on the idea of the school as a ‘shared anchor’ that allowed for an ongoing process of critical reflection and growth. The socio-constructivist systemic approach which continues to underpin work is defined through two key elements. The first is the maintenance of systemic complexity and epistemology with ‘methods serving as secondary tools.’ They note that holding a systemic perspective and avoiding judgemental thinking and the binary of right or wrong is challenging for even the most accomplished practitioner. A second, is freedom in therapeutic practice which they identify as a ‘core epistemological and ethical aspect of therapy.’ This freedom must always be within the constraints imposed by specific relationships and contexts and continually reevaluated throughout the work. Most importantly they emphasise the need to learn how to think rather than adopt formulaic methods that take epistemological assumptions for granted.
The paper defines seven characteristics of practice that currently define them, giving a more concrete understanding of a shared approach. Ultimately the authors hope that the Milan approach ‘frees itself from any static explanation that no longer responds to current times.’ Given the rapidity and unpredictability of change in our current world this appears to be a very reasonable goal.
Telfener, U., de Bustis, E., Cazzaniga, E., Ferrari, F., Floris, R., Ganda, G., Giordano, C., Giuliani, M., La Barbera, C., Marchiori, R., Mosconi, A., Mreule, S., Pasini, B., Pezzolo, M., Rosas, R., Sacchelli, D., Sannasardo, P., Sbattella, F., Tettamanzi, M., … Barazzetti, A. (2025). The Milan Approach today. Family Process, 64(1), e13075. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.13075
©Copyright Bower Place Pty. Ltd. 2025
