|
Article Excerpt
Counseling orientations are redescribed in terms of the relative importance they place on knowing. This epistemological redescription results in a reconsideration of the role of humanism. Specifically, rather than a treatment orientation, the author argues that humanism should be considered a moral imperative. Implications of this conclusion for contemporary mental health culture are elaborated.
**********
The activity of counseling is supported by many foundational assumptions. One such assumption, for example, is that one person can reduce the psychological suffering of another by orchestrating particular types of conversations. Another, arguably, is that helping depends on the creation of an intimate, relatively judgment-free environment that fosters the expression of progressively deeper aspects of self. Probably, few would disagree with these basic assumptions. However, there is another philosophically axiomatic principle of counseling that has been the subject of considerable debate within theoretical circles. Namely, it is the idea that one person can come to know another.
This issue of human knowing would seem to be a prerequisite to all of the other foundational assumptions of the counseling enterprise. That is, if people, by nature, are not capable of coming to know one another, meeting for regular conversations would be a completely pointless endeavor. Counseling theories, however, take widely divergent stances on this basic issue of human knowing. Humanism, for example, posits that knowing is not only fully possible but that it is necessary for psychological healing to occur (Rogers, 1951, 1957). Traditional behaviorism, alternatively, regards human subjectivity as a hollow, irrelevant distraction (Skinner, 1974).
Because human knowing is at the core of counseling practice, it might be useful to organize counseling theories in terms of their relative positions on knowing. Given Rorty's (1991) supposition that all progress occurs through redescription, redescribing counseling theories along epistemological lines might yield new insights and possibilities for counseling practice. Indeed, as I demonstrate, novel ways of thinking about counseling practice are, in fact, generated by an epistemological redescription of counseling theories. Moreover, these new ideas have particular relevance for humanism, because humanism is arguably distinguishable from other counseling orientations by its idealization of human knowing.
Therefore, the purpose of this article is to offer a new description of counseling from the vantage point of knowing. This is accomplished through the following organizational structure: (a) centrality of knowing to helping, (b) full knowing as unattainable, (c) full knowing as unimportant, (d) full knowing as imperative, and (e) discussion and conclusions.
CENTRALITY OF KNOWING TO HELPING
Knowing, at least in some limited capacity, would seem to be a prerequisite to helping. That is, if humans, by nature, are locked into their own solipsistic universes, counseling would be a futile activity, just as it would be pointless for a person born without the ability to taste to become a food critic. Notably, certain philosophers (e.g., Berkeley; Armstrong, 1965) have, indeed, argued that human knowing cannot extend beyond the parameters of one's own mind. Counseling theorists, naturally, have generally not been this pessimistic about the possibility of knowing. All mainstream practice orientations make theoretical allowances for knowing to occur.
However, there is tremendous epistemological variation among counseling theories. Indeed, if theories were clients, some would certainly be diagnosed with serious intimacy issues. Traditional behaviorism, for example, is virtually schizoidal in terms of its outright renunciation of the need for authentic human knowing. Likewise, humanism, with its emphasis on the necessity of constant empathic contact, would be a prime candidate for dependent personality disorder. Psychiatric metaphors aside, just as people can be understood in terms of the value they place on human knowing, so can the theories that describe them.
There are conceivably many ways to classify counseling orientations along epistemological lines. I have selected three categories to organize theories with regard to knowing: (a) full knowing as unattainable, (b) full knowing as unimportant, and (c) full knowing as imperative. Each category is discussed below.
FULL KNOWING AS UNATTAINABLE
It may seem odd that there are counseling orientations that do not theoretically allow for full knowing to occur. If counseling depends on knowing, one would not expect these theories to have influenced counseling practice. Indeed, two orientations that are extremely pessimistic about knowing have, somewhat paradoxically, been very influential to counseling practitioners. These two orientations are existentialism and Continental postmodernism.
Existentialism began as a European philosophical...
|
