Postmodernism

[Suggestologist]

This seems to be rather off the subject of my post, but yes, of course, because "how it is administered" is part of the technique.

But "how it is administered" also involves the personality of the therapist; and often requires adapting to the client/customer; sometimes by doing something that isn't technically part of THE therapy modality that is being "used".

Same way you'd scientifically test any other healing claim.

I don't think you fully appreciate the difference between giving someone a pill (or a poke); and having a conversation (and perhaps some hypnotic guided imagery as well) that changes someone's life for the better. There is a substantial difference; a different order of entanglement between cure and customer.

Oh for Pete's sake.

It's like a number of schools of subsidised performance artists, and their captive audience are all depressed and confused. This week... Provocativism!

Yeah... you can't expect those "ordinary" people to understand why your therapeutic practice is based on treating them as though they were a "text" according to the conventions of a French mumbo-jumbo literary theory. No, you can't. You really can't.

OK, I'll get DeShazer's book later today or early tomorrow. But I do happen to have The Evolution of Psychotherapy: The Third Conference, ed. Jeffrey K. Zeig, Ph.D. with me -- which has a chapter "Postmodernism and Family Therapy" by Lyn Hoffman, A.C.S.W. So I'll quote some:

p. 337: "Social psychologist Kenneth Gergen (1994) describes the postmodern position as (a) challenging the supremacy of science in studying human affairs; (b) questioning the correspondence theory of language, that words mirror items in the external world, and (c) believing that "reality" is a matter of storied social agreement."

p. 339: "In emphasizing the social basis of knowing, Gergen challenges the Enlightenment position that consciousness resides in the mind of the individual knower. For him, it is a product of the web of language and communication that weaves us in from birth. He also states that we are moving from a cognitive to a linguistic lens in describing what we call reality."

p.339: "Another contribution came from two Texas psychologists, Harlene Anderson and the late Harry Goolishan (1988). Their collaborative language systems approach dictated that the therapist come from a position of "not knowing." This stance was congruent with the postmodern stricture against foundational truth, but to someone used to family therapy's authoritative style it seemed radical. [...] As the professional renounced authority, the capability of the customer seemed to increase."

p. 340: "An aversion to the idea of deficits is particularly evident in the work of narrative therapists Michael White and David Epston (1990). [...] see therapy as a work of personal and cultural liberation. Their methods for "re-authoring lives" (White, 1995) are supported by a strong pull for agency. Most importantly, through their use of a storying metaphor they have severed the tie to family systems modernism."

p. 345: "For instance, a North American back pain might not be a Peurto Rican back pain. Pakman sees therapy as an opportunity to deconstruct our ideas of what is normal. As such, he says, it has a decolonizing role to play, not only for the people we see but for us as professionals too."

p.346: "Explaining the genealogy of a view cuts into the Moses' Tablets effect from which the utterances of professionals too often draw their strength."

Can a therapist explain the genealogy of their view without jargon? I think so, in most cases.

(1) There you go again, talking about how some therapies are dodgy so it doesn't matter if yours is.

Actually, RET isn't too dodgy. It's the forerunner of CBT -- which seems to have the weight of science on its side for at least depression. What I'm pointing out is that there are "dodgy" elements even in the best of therapies.

If I had the proponents of RET to hand, or the Rogerians whom you mentioned earlier, I should be asking them very similar questions. I've got you.

OK. Then your question is not about postmodernism but psychotherapy in general. And the answer is really more about how a system of psychotherapy can be standardized. And de Shazer has attempted an answer to that question, I'll elaborate on soon, when I re-examine one of his books.

(2) "How long would it take, how much would it cost," you ask? You could ask the same about testing medicine. Without the time, the cost, we'd still be stuck with quacks.

Where do you suppose we'd find therapies to test? Who would one look to to support a never-tried therapy with research money?

Doctors are bound to follow what is known to be best practice or be sued for negligence. This does in fact involve trying one thing after another --- from a given set, in a given order --- as determined by trials of the drugs. They don't just make it up as they go along: "That didn't work, let's try eye of newt."

This corresponds to DeShazer's expert-system (computer program) for his therapy system. However, it makes the role of drug sales-reps a mystery.

If they're trying a new approach, they're bound to tell their patients and ask consent. With "individualized" therapy, you're trying an experiment on each patient --- without asking consent --- and without it even being an experiment, since there is no control. How do you find out if you're doing the right thing?

There can't be a true control, no two people have the exact same case. The only way to control would be to create a duplicate of the individual and send them to different individual therapists. Maybe we should wait until that's possibe before we certify the effectiveness of any therapy for any particular individual.

Can you show any value added by postmodernist theory? Anywhere? Ever?

That's easy to do for (almost) any therapy. But what you seem to be asking for are statistics, not individual success-story people who can directly link therapy to better life. I'm sure that even Primal Scream therapy has helped some people.

Can you show that it does not actually impede therapy? Then why are you advocating it? TEST IT. PROPERLY.

ibid, "From Rehabilitation to Etiology: Progress and Pitfalls", Margaret Thaler Singer, Ph.D.:

p.351: "Therapists of a few decades past who were trained in the etiological model were cautioned against unduly influencing patients. Their work was monitored to avoid the pitfalls of "wild analysis" and therapists imposing their value systems on patients. There was training in a number of therapy modalities ranging from supportive interpretations, to hypnosis, psychoanalysis, behavior modification, and other techniques. The therapist was expected to treat a wide range of behavior with appropriate and patient-specific methods. The rehabilitative therapist was expected to be able to treat a wide range of patients with an equally broad range of techniques. The therapist was akin to a custom tailor. However, currently, many therapists are fitting patients into a Procrustean bed--patients are being led to accept the therapist's favorite mode of treatment, which may not necessarily be the one most needed by the patient, but is the one the therapist most prizes (Singer, 1977; Singer & Lalich, 1996; Williams, 1985)."