I am interested in explanation—how we can explain relationships and their dilemmas and satisfactions, both ordinary and extraordinary. Clearly we can describe life's joys and sorrows, despair and trauma responses, but we need to explain how they come about, if we are to be able to help people cope and to live more satisfying lives. For me, systemic theory provides a reflexive framework to map pattern and process and communication and meaning-making in our relationships. It is a process model and helps separate the person and the relationship from the problem. But it does not directly speak of content. From the early days of my training in family therapy I turned to theories of content, namely attachment theory and attachment research, narrative theory and trauma theory. For me, theories that purport to capture our life experiences in our intimate relationships need to have face validity and the explanatory power to help me understand what is happening to me and to others, and very often this involves multiple theories and hypotheses. Thus the task of explanation becomes one of integration, formulation and critical reflection. In my view, we have an ethical responsibility to draw on available theories as resources to aid understanding, and to integrate them in a way that all involved agree makes the best sense, and the best plan for action. Clearly no explanation is ever sufficient, and needs to be flexible to incorporate new information, and open to critical appraisal, or to be open to change in the face of non-confirmation. But it needs to be useful—useful to all involved in the therapeutic process.