In assembling this special issue, we decided to plunge into the rabbit hole. Having put the words teaching and postmodern together in our call for articles, we entered a domain of shifting meanings, a place of ongoing deconstruction and reconstruction. That defiant refusal of firm categorization and final definitions goes with the territory we opted to explore. However, as editors of this special issue, we found it necessary to temporarily “fix” the terms so that we could communicate to prospective readers the approximate outer boundaries of the pieces we were soliciting. So before we introduce you to this collection of bold and inventive essays, we would like to take a moment to reflect on these key terms and our intentions in using them. In seeking to explore the teaching of postmodern family therapy, we were deliberate in excluding supervision. We realize that the line between teaching and supervision is not always a sharp one; on the other hand, there is a fair body of accumulated literature on postmodern supervision and very little devoted to teaching and training per se. We distinguish “teaching” from “training” mostly in terms of the divide between university-based programs (teaching), where the learning happens as part of ongoing coursework, and the private domain (training), where learning happens in the context of a workshop or some form of ongoing externship. The articles submitted for this special issue cover both domains. The word postmodern rolls off the tongue easily and is widely disseminated these days; because of its wide currency and varied usage, however, the word is not very precise. We chose it to represent a wide swath of contemporary therapeutic practice mostly linked by a critique of approaches that lead to the adoption of an expert stance, approaches that champion themselves by appealing to purportedly universal human change processes, personality dimensions, and the like. We find useful Anderson’s (2003) description of the postmodern critique as a