The popular view of structural faimly therapy sees the structural diagnosis of faimiles and lying at the heart of this therapeutic approach. This article challenges that view. It argues that the practive of structural family therapy is driven not by structural diagnosis but by two fundamental assumptions about human and family functioning: the assumption of comptence and the assumption of uniqueness. Consequences of this revisionist view are explored in two areas: (a) the area of the dialogue within the family therapy field regarding the emerging tradition of second‐order therapy and (b) the area of training in structural family therap