A feminist model for the use of paradoxical techniques in psychotherapy.

Abstract

Paradoxical techniques in psychotherapy have been criticized for being manipulative and disrespectful. Feminist therapy theory, with its explicit analysis of the issue of power in therapy, provides an ideal framework from which to address the use of paradox. This article examines both theoretical and practical aspects of the use of paradox in psychotherapy and presents a feminist model for implementing paradoxical techniques. Paradox is conceptualized as an alliance with the client. An "open paradox" is suggested, in which the therapist gives the client information about paradox and collaborates with the client in designing the intervention.

Therapy with Families in Poverty

“…In this sense, a feminist perspective is one that can be integrated into virtually any therapeutic model. In fact, efforts have been made to synthesize feminist critiques and various therapeutic approaches (Hill, 1992;Lee, 1997;Terry, 1992). When considered in a historical context, systemic models of family therapy and feminist scholarship have evolved a great deal since the late 1970s (Goldner, 1991), giving rise to a greater awareness of gender issues and social justice among marriage and family therapists.…”

The Process of Psychotherapy for Helping Professionals: The Role of Empirical Findings to Guide Practice

“…Another method of altering problematic behaviours is the technique of the paradoxical directive, which has been associated with considerable therapeutic success (Conoley & Garber, 1985;Horvath & Goheen, 1990), especially with clients who are resistant to change. However, criticisms that have been levelled against paradoxical techniques include the fact that they are premised on manipulating and deceiving the client (Hill, 1992). Consequently, their implementation is considered ethically dubious unless, as suggested by Hill (1992), clients are provided with information about the intention of the technique and the technique itself is jointly designed by the therapist and client.…”

“…However, criticisms that have been levelled against paradoxical techniques include the fact that they are premised on manipulating and deceiving the client (Hill, 1992). Consequently, their implementation is considered ethically dubious unless, as suggested by Hill (1992), clients are provided with information about the intention of the technique and the technique itself is jointly designed by the therapist and client.…”

Untitled

“…Although difficult t o achieve, there may be ways to do so. For example, one can assimilate "open paradox" (Hill, 1992) into humanistic therapies without violating the meaning and nature of humanistic tradition. The therapist inform s client s about th e rationale an d purpos e o f th e paradox whil e collaborating wit h the m in designing and executing the intervention.…”