Postmodernism

[Jeff Wagg]

"But first let's step back and try posing the essentialist question, 'What is film?' - and hope to answer it in a less essentialist, more 'deconstructive' manner."

But why would we want to do that? What is there to learn? Wait, let me guess..the answer to that question is why do I value learning over not-learning.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but now that you've introduced oDd punTUations and spuriou..s periods, I WOnder if this entire posed mod-urn exerCISE is meant 2B a work of art?

It sure doesn't give me a reason to go to work in the morning. (Not that I have a job in the first place.)

 

[Tom Morris]

Of course if you tell this to a postmodernist, it won't get through to them. At most it might daze them for about two seconds. To get through to them, mere logic is not enough - you need to hit them with political correctness.

They don't deal with logic. They are basically trumped up literary professors, who write pep talk for artists and writers. Aestheticians actually try to construct logical arugments about the meaning of art and beauty and so on.

Ever seen Philip Johnson's AT&T Corporate headquarters building in New York (now the Sony building)? It has roof that looks like a pediment on a piece of Chippendale furniture.

I hope that's not the same Johnson who wrote that terrible tome "Darwin on Trial".

 

[Suggestologist]

But why would we want to do that? What is there to learn? Wait, let me guess..the answer to that question is why do I value learning over not-learning.

In the question on film, it is to feel the trace of the play of presence/absence with regard to film; and other deconstructionisms of film.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but now that you've introduced oDd punTUations and spuriou..s periods, I WOnder if this entire posed mod-urn exerCISE is meant 2B a work of art?

Imagine priviledging performance over description; experience over (cold) abstraction. [Behavior/Cognitive modification over giving someone insight into why they have a psychogenic problem.]

It sure doesn't GIVE ME a REASON to go to work in the morning. (Not that I have a job in the FIRST place.)

... Parallel over Linear ...

 

[Jeff Wagg]

... Parallel over Linear ...

In my experience, serial is the opposite of parallel..which brings up an interesting point...who's to say these things are opposites?

Serial and parallel both describe vectors. What's the oppostie of a vector? A fixed point? A blast radius?

I value non-linear thinking for problem solving. Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies come to mind. In art, this is valuable. In therapy? It can be a valuable technique, but it's not something to base therapy on.

In life? If you adopted a post-modernist world view, it seems the only defensible position would be to sit and quiver.

Or am I missing the point and postmodernist thought is just another way to separate the elites from the rest of us?

 

[Suggestologist]

In my experience, serial is the opposite of parallel..which brings up an interesting point...who's to say these things are opposites?

Is the opposite of right, wrong?
Is the opposite of taken, left?

Serial and parallel both describe vectors. What's the oppostie of a vector? A fixed point? A blast radius?

I value non-linear thinking for problem solving. Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies come to mind. In art, this is valuable. In therapy? It can be a valuable technique, but it's not something to base therapy on.

In life? If you adopted a post-modernist world view, it seems the only defensible position would be to sit and quiver.

Or am I missing the point and postmodernist thought is just another way to separate the elites from the rest of us?

The other major influence on De Shazer is M.H. Erickson.

From: Conversations with Milton H. Erickson, M.D.: Volume I Changing Individuals; pp.69-70; H: is Jay Haley, E: is Erickson:

E: How do you introduce a person to the idea, when they don't dare to get into the nude and look at themsleves?

H: How do you?

E: The patient tells you, "I can't possibly get in the nude and look at myself in the mirror." Then there may be many efforts and they can't possibly do it as a deliberative, motivated thing. "I can't stand in front of the mirror and look at myself. I can't possibly do it." So they won't undress, and they can't. How would you get them to do it?

H: I don't know.

E: You get them to do it on their own terms. They tell you, "I can't possibly get in the nude, stand in front of the mirror, and look at myself, I can't possibly do it." You say, "That's right, I am going to make you prove it. I think you'll laugh at me when I tell you what to do. On a very dark night, with the curtains drawn, and the lights out, undress and stand in front of the mirror and look at yourself, and you can't possibly see yourself in the nude. You can do that because you can't possibly see yourself in the nude." Once they've done it -- "See what you've done?" You've got them to do it, and they can't possibly do it, and they've done the thing they can't possibly do. (Laughter) So you've put a completely different construction on it.

H: Yes.

E: Once they go through that, they agree it is a silly thing to do; they might as well do it with the lights on the next time.

You can look at what he does here (and paradoxical therapeutic approaches in general) as deconstructive. What's the binary opposition here? How is it deconstructed by Erickson? Do you get it?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You can look at what he does here (and paradoxical therapeutic approaches in general) as deconstructive. What's the binary opposition here? How is it deconstructed by Erickson? Do you get it?

Now post-modernists have invented behavioural therapy! Hurray!

I'm still waiting for Suggestologist's, er, narrative about how the invention of the wheel was a post-modernist intervention against "linear thought".

 

[Suggestologist]

Now post-modernists have invented behavioural therapy! Hurray!

Um.... While the result could be seen as counterconditioning and therefore a behavioural approach ... that was not the point of the question Erickson posed to Haley: "How do you introduce a person to the idea, when they don't dare to get into the nude and look at themsleves?" The question is "How?", not "What?"; and the point was to demonstrate from a (Strategic) Paradoxical (and Brief) therapeutic approach, how to get someone to do something they can't do by "will".

I'm still waiting for Suggestologist's, er, narrative about how the invention of the wheel was a post-modernist intervention against "linear thought".

Hmm.. I've seen a decentered motorcycle wheel on some TV show; where there is no central axel; but energy is transmitted from a portion of the (inner and outer) edge of the wheel; and so the inside of the wheel is empty, no spokes; and that can be seen as the decentering stage of deconstruction as applied to the concept of the wheel; I don't know that the people who made it were fond of post-modernism. But I hope that brightens your night.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

Do you get it?

I'm not sure. If I had a therapist say that to me, I'd accuse him of abusing language. He is ignoring my meaning and still using my words. I don't see how this is helpful. His characterization of the patient's response seems laughable to me.

I like this sort of thing in art. I'm a huge Laurie Anderson fan "It won't, but then again it might. And we all know that might makes right..."

But as a worldview? I just don't see it.

Consider this also, opposites are logic tools; they don't really exist.

 

[Suggestologist]

I'm not sure. If I had a therapist say that to me, I'd accuse him of abusing language. He is ignoring my meaning and still using my words.

Notice that Erickson has framed the idea as being "silly" -- "I think you'll laugh at me when I tell you what to do."; so you would not be likely to accuse that. Is it inappropriate to be silly with clients? even to loosen them up? to loosen their symptoms?

I don't see how this is helpful. His characterization of the patient's response seems laughable to me.

I like this sort of thing in art. I'm a huge Laurie Anderson fan "It won't, but then again it might. And we all know that might makes right..."

But as a worldview? I just don't see it.

Then it probably won't be part of your approach.

Consider this also, opposites are logic tools; they don't really exist.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Um.... While the result could be seen as counterconditioning and therefore a behavioural approach ... that was not the point of the question Erickson posed to Haley: "How do you introduce a person to the idea, when they don't dare to get into the nude and look at themsleves?" The question is "How?", not "What?"; and the point was to demonstrate from a (Strategic) Paradoxical (and Brief) therapeutic approach, how to get someone to do something they can't do by "will".

But why is this a "(Strategic) Paradoxical (and Brief) therapeutic approach" rather than just, well, counterconditioning? How does the success of the therapy relate to postmodernism?

Hmm.. I've seen a decentered motorcycle wheel on some TV show; where there is no central axel; but energy is transmitted from a portion of the (inner and outer) edge of the wheel; and so the inside of the wheel is empty, no spokes; and that can be seen as the decentering stage of deconstruction as applied to the concept of the wheel; I don't know that the people who made it were fond of post-modernism. But I hope that brightens your night.

It does. There you go. And this leads me back to the first problem I raised: you have a system of hermeneutics so odd, so untestable, so whimsical, that you can wring any hidden meaning you choose out of any patient you choose. Postmodernism can always rise to the challenge, and anything can be deconstructed how you please. So what are you playing at, when you're playing word games with people already unhappy and confused?

And I'll re-ask another question: the empirical evidence that this method is better than others? Please?

 

[Suggestologist]

But why is this a "(Strategic) Paradoxical (and Brief) therapeutic approach" rather than just, well, counterconditioning?

Because counterconditioning was already presupposed as the course of action; the question was how to do it; and the answer was a paradoxical therapeutic approach; and the direct approach had already failed.

How does the success of the therapy relate to postmodernism?

I really don't know what kind of answer you're looking for. Are you saying that if the therapy is successful and it's based on postmodernism; then postmodernism should be elevated? I don't really agree with that.

Postmodernism is philosophy; philosophy can be applied to various areas; but even when a philosophy is outmoded as philosophy, it can still be useful in other areas, or vice versa.

It does. There you go. And this leads me back to the first problem I raised: you have a system of hermeneutics so odd, so untestable, so whimsical, that you can wring any hidden meaning you choose out of any patient you choose.

That's possible with any system. But go back to my first response to Wagg and his answer to my first two questions.

Postmodernism can always rise to the challenge, and anything can be deconstructed how you please. So what are you playing at, when you're playing word games with people already unhappy and confused?

As if Rogerians don't play word games.... Part of what keeps things rigid and stuck and unable to see other possibilities is seriousness; if you can get them to play with you, to loosen the hell up; there's absolutely everything right with that. You don't stop with that, but pathological rationality to the point of no sense of humor is bad, very bad. If you can reframe the problem to be a benefit or a positive movement toward a change in another problem, that's another word game deconstruction fits; and is a paradoxical therapeutic approach.

And this also has implications for the role of humor in Derrida's deconstruction itself.

And I'll re-ask another question: the empirical evidence that this method is better than others? Please?

Well let me quote a website I just found of a course probably similar to what Wagg is taking:

http://psy1.clarion.edu/jms/cptsyll.html
The field is rapidly moving toward a theory of differential treatment. Rather than "What is the best theory of counseling and psychotherapy?" we are increasingly thinking "What treatment, by whom, is most effective for this individual, with that specific problem, and under what set of circumstances?" (Paul, 1967). As a result we must learn a variety of treatment modalities, some of which may be less comfortable for us. We must also learn to hear and respect vastly differing world views.

And Wagg seems to have a current textbook that includes DeShazer, so I'd like to see what your book says about the evidence for DeShazer's specific approach, Jeff Wagg. And perhaps the narrative-type as well. I may or may not add-to and/or comment.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Because counterconditioning was already presupposed as the course of action; the question was how to do it; and the answer was a paradoxical therapeutic approach; and the direct approach had already failed.

I really don't know what kind of answer you're looking for. Are you saying that if the therapy is successful and it's based on postmodernism; then postmodernism should be elevated? I don't really agree with that.

Postmodernism is philosophy; philosophy can be applied to various areas; but even when a philosophy is outmoded as philosophy, it can still be useful in other areas, or vice versa.

But, specifically, it cannot claim that part of that usefulness is behavioural therapy.

That's possible with any system.

No.

But go back to my first response to Wagg and his answer to my first two questions.

Yes... and... this clarifies things, does it?

As if Rogerians don't play word games....

How are the methods of Rogerians relevant to the effectiveness of postmodern practices?

Part of what keeps things rigid and stuck and unable to see other possibilities is seriousness; if you can get them to play with you, to loosen the hell up; there's absolutely everything right with that. You don't stop with that, but pathological rationality to the point of no sense of humor is bad, very bad. If you can reframe the problem to be a benefit or a positive movement toward a change in another problem, that's another word game deconstruction fits; and is a paradoxical therapeutic approach.

And this also has implications for the role of humor in Derrida's deconstruction itself.

NEWSFLASH! POSTMODERNISTS DISCOVER THAT LAUGHING AT SILLY IDEAS HELPS PEOPLE TO SEE THAT THEY'RE SILLY! Unlike boring old pre-post-modernists such as me. And hey, if you rub two sticks together... well, I never knew...

Well let me quote a website I just found of a course probably similar to what Wagg is taking:

And Wagg seems to have a current textbook that includes DeShazer, so I'd like to see what your book says about the evidence for DeShazer's specific approach, Jeff Wagg. And perhaps the narrative-type as well. I may or may not add-to and/or comment.

I have no book, but I want to know the answer to the question you quote:

What treatment, by whom, is most effective for this individual, with that specific problem, and under what set of circumstances?

I find no suggestion that you've found this out, and found that the particular technique you're recommending is known to be most effective for any class of individuals under any set of circumstances. The quotation is an attempt to disguise "Anything goes" as pragmatism.

 

[Suggestologist]

I have no book, but I want to know the answer to the question you quote:

I find no suggestion that you've found this out, and found that the particular technique you're recommending is known to be most effective for any class of individuals under any set of circumstances. The quotation is an attempt to disguise "Anything goes" as pragmatism.

I'd like to find out what Wagg thinks of individualizing therapy to the client.

But let me point out that most effective for a "class of individuals"; is not necessarily most effective for any particular individual.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But let me point out that most effective for a "class of individuals"; is not necessarily most effective for any particular individual.

No, just the therapy most likely to be effective for a member of that class. And therefore the therapy to be tried first. I do understand that therapy is not deterministic. Nonetheles, everything which increases the probability of success should be done.

Now, if you can't show that this therapy is better than every other therapy for the population overall (and you're not apparently claiming that this is so) and if it is particularly good for some people, then putting the two figures together, it would actually be impeding some people (as compared to other therapies). Postmoderist jargon would certainly drive me nuts.

You therefore need either

(1) Proof that it is the best therapy for the overall population of clients
(2) A way of distinguishing for which clients (and you have not demonstrated yet that there are any) it is likely to be the most suitable therapy.

Actually, (2) would still be desirable even if you had (1), since, yes, people are different, and a proof that Po-Mo-nalysis was generally best wouldn't prove it best in each case.

But you don't seem to have anything to back you up. This is just a piece of blue sky. It may work best for all or some (I wouldn't bet on it) but this question requires research before enthusiastic application.

If you're actually using these postmodern techniques yourself, I have to be priggish and say, bad, bad Suggestologist. How would your position then differ from a doctor prescribing a drug that hadn't undergone trials?

 

[Jeff Wagg]

And Wagg seems to have a current textbook that includes DeShazer, so I'd like to see what your book says about the evidence for DeShazer's specific approach, Jeff Wagg. And perhaps the narrative-type as well. I may or may not add-to and/or comment.

The book is Theory and Practice of Counseling & Psychotherapy (7th Edition) by Gerald Corey, who appears to have way too much power in this field.

It lumps Solution Focused Brief Therapy together with Narrative Therapy in a chapter called "Post Modern Approaches," which is significant because every other chapter refers to a theory rather than an approach. It also says that the SFBT people aren't therapists, they are consultants or conversationalists.

I apologize for the length of this.

It says nothing about evidence, save a figure from DeShazer where he says that 91% of his clients have met their goals in about five visits. To be fair, there is very little evidence for any theory or approach.

It says about the post modern approaches:

There are multiple realities and truths. There is no external reality. People create meaning through conversations with others. There is no pathology, diagnosis, or searching for the root of a problem.

Therapy tends to be brief. The person is not the problem; the problem is the problem. The emphasis is on externalizing the problem and looking for exceptions. Therapy is a collaborative dialogue where client and therapist work to co-create solutions. By indentifying instances when the problem did not exist, clients can create new meanings for themselves and fashion a new life story.

Therapists take an active role in challenging social and cultural injustices that lead to oppression of certain groups.

Clients want to talk about their problems, but may be put off by talking about just exceptions. Clients may wish the therapist to be an expert, or be put off by a therapist who is not an expert.

De Shazer suggests that there is no relationship between problem and solution. Therapy is goal driven, and employs rating scales to determine effectiveness. De Shazer asks "If a miracle happened and the problem you have was solved overnight, how would you know it was solved, and what would be different?"

Brevity is the main appeal of SFBT which places a premium on short-term therapy.

I looked, but I couldn't find anything that mentioned an XOR type of situation, or playing with words. This is just an introductory text however.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I'd like to find out what Wagg thinks of individualizing therapy to the client.

But let me point out that most effective for a "class of individuals"; is not necessarily most effective for any particular individual.

I think it's essential, and if therapy ever becomes formulaic, I'm going to give it up and do something else with my life.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

If you're actually using these postmodern techniques yourself, I have to be priggish and say, bad, bad Suggestologist. How would your position then differ from a doctor prescribing a drug that hadn't undergone trials?

I think the Dr. asks good questions, and I'll not interfere, but I do want to stay that some of the techniques of these approaches are valuable in certain cases. For example: a woman considers herself a bad mother because she didn't breast feed her children and now they have health problems. She could "re-story" (hate these new words) herself into a good mother by realizing that if she had breast fed, she wouldn't have been able to go to work and raise the money they needed to get her away from her abused husband...or whatever...you get the idea.

I think THAT is useful. What I don't get is what Postmodernist Philosophy has to do with it. I could see the same technique as being part of Reality Therapy or RET.

So, I don't think that using these approaches is "bad," but it does seem to be something other than therapy. At most, it's a small part of therapy.

 

[Suggestologist]

No, just the therapy most likely to be effective for a member of that class. And therefore the therapy to be tried first. I do understand that therapy is not deterministic. Nonetheles, everything which increases the probability of success should be done.

OK. And I have no problem with that. But the question really is more of how in particular things are done. Sure, you have some technique that you think will get a client traction, does it matter how it is administered? Can you give them a worksheet or several after you diagnose their problem so they can go work out their own problems? Are some therapists better with some techniques and bad at others, and vice versa? Is it possible that a number of techniques from a variety of approaches at different stages of a particular person's therapy might be best? How would you scientifically test that?

DeShazer used an expert-system, a computer program, to test something like that. I'd like Jeff Wagg to see what/whether his textbook says about that.

Now, if you can't show that this therapy is better than every other therapy for the population overall (and you're not apparently claiming that this is so) and if it is particularly good for some people, then putting the two figures together, it would actually be impeding some people (as compared to other therapies). Postmoderist jargon would certainly drive me nuts.

Jargon isn't neccessary for the client, maybe one or two new words; lots of jargon should really only be used for-effect by any type of therapist; like Frank Farrelly, the Provocative Therapist, protege of Carl Rogers. I mean a hypnotist isn't going to explain what a double-dissociative double-bind or an apposition of opposites and what it does, is -- to the client; I hope not.

You therefore need either

(1) Proof that it is the best therapy for the overall population of clients
(2) A way of distinguishing for which clients (and you have not demonstrated yet that there are any) it is likely to be the most suitable therapy.

Actually, (2) would still be desirable even if you had (1), since, yes, people are different, and a proof that Po-Mo-nalysis was generally best wouldn't prove it best in each case.

But you don't seem to have anything to back you up. This is just a piece of blue sky. It may work best for all or some (I wouldn't bet on it) but this question requires research before enthusiastic application.

How do you suppose new therapies get developed? Did Albert Ellis have scientific evidence as he was developing RET, forerunner of the more recently much scientifically verified CBT? Did you know Ellis used hypnosis to help his clients get into and use the ideas of RET better? Oh no, mixed modalities. (As if post-hypnotic suggestions weren't behavioral before behavioral existed.)

And talk about jargon; are you familiar with the ABC's of RET? Have you listened to some of Maxine Maultsby's RET session tapes? He's suggesting things all over the place to get the client to sit still and listen to the rational ideas of RET. Hmmm... no therapy is an island? And I've seen Albert Ellis in action on videotape, and let me tell you, I think his personal approach is extremely abrasive, Maultsby is much smoother; and they are RET leaders. And are we going to scientifically test if a (subjectively) abrasive personal approach works better than a (subjectively) smoother personal approach? I'd like to see those studies done for every therapeutic approach, how long do you think it would take, how much would it cost?

If you're actually using these postmodern techniques yourself, I have to be priggish and say, bad, bad Suggestologist. How would your position then differ from a doctor prescribing a drug that hadn't undergone trials?

Hmmm.... how do medical doctors figure out which drug is best for an individual client? They try the one they think works best and see what the client says, side-effects, improvement, etc.; if it's not satisfactory they try another drug in the same class; or change the dose. Very scientifically verified, that approach.

How do surgeons determine where they're going to cut; if they discover that things are different from what the imaging told them; should they keep their old plans; or do they need to adapt? Very scientific, this approach.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

DeShazer used an expert-system, a computer program, to test something like that. I'd like Jeff Wagg to see what/whether his textbook says about that.

My textbook doesn't mention DeShazer much, and certainly doesn't mention testing or proofs at all.

Though I consider myself a skeptic, I don't think science is ready to tackle proving or disproving therapeutic techniques. The theories are somewhat outside of science...in fact, they're not even theories; they're more like metaphors.

Psychotherapy is clearly an art, not a science. I'd be happy to pick a fight with anyone who says otherwise.

 

[Dr Adequate]

OK. And I have no problem with that. But the question really is more of how in particular things are done. Sure, you have some technique that you think will get a client traction, does it matter how it is administered?

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.

Can you give them a worksheet or several after you diagnose their problem so they can go work out their own problems? Are some therapists better with some techniques and bad at others, and vice versa? Is it possible that a number of techniques from a variety of approaches at different stages of a particular person's therapy might be best? How would you scientifically test that?

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

Frank Farrelly, the Provocative Therapist...

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!

I mean a hypnotist isn't going to explain what a double-dissociative double-bind or an apposition of opposites and what it does, is -- to the client; I hope not.

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.

How do you suppose new therapies get developed? Did Albert Ellis have scientific evidence as he was developing RET, forerunner of the more recently much scientifically verified CBT? Did you know Ellis used hypnosis to help his clients get into and use the ideas of RET better? Oh no, mixed modalities. (As if post-hypnotic suggestions weren't behavioral before behavioral existed.)

And talk about jargon; are you familiar with the ABC's of RET? Have you listened to some of Maxine Maultsby's RET session tapes? He's suggesting things all over the place to get the client to sit still and listen to the rational ideas of RET. Hmmm... no therapy is an island? And I've seen Albert Ellis in action on videotape, and let me tell you, I think his personal approach is extremely abrasive, Maultsby is much smoother; and they are RET leaders. And are we going to scientifically test if a (subjectively) abrasive personal approach works better than a (subjectively) smoother personal approach? I'd like to see those studies done for every therapeutic approach, how long do you think it would take, how much would it cost?

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

(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.

Hmmm.... how do medical doctors figure out which drug is best for an individual client? They try the one they think works best and see what the client says, side-effects, improvement, etc.; if it's not satisfactory they try another drug in the same class; or change the dose. Very scientifically verified, that approach.

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."

How do surgeons determine where they're going to cut; if they discover that things are different from what the imaging told them; should they keep their old plans; or do they need to adapt? Very scientific, this approach.

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?

Can you show any value added by postmodernist theory? Anywhere? Ever? Can you show that it does not actually impede therapy? Then why are you advocating it? TEST IT. PROPERLY.