Pluralistic Criteria for Psychotherapy: An Alternative to Sectarianism, Anarchy, and Utopian Integration

Abstract

A pluralist revolution has taken place in psychotherapy, discarding the assumptions that only one theory can be true and that there exists only one method for finding it. Rejecting the anarchistic attitude of "anything goes" as professionally nihilistic, we propose that in the present pluralistic era it is necessary to recognize a multiplicity of perspectives for determining the rightness of therapeutic constructs. A construct or intervention is right to the extent that it fits demands for coherence and pragmatic value from a variety of perspectives, such as the patient's, the clinical community's, the academic community's, and the general public's. Within the clinical and academic communities, the greater the variety of acceptance (by different schools, theories, and methodologies), the greater the construct's cumulative rightness. The difference between this variety rule and a majority one is made explicit. Coherence and pragmatic value are widely accepted criteria and they define the universe of rational discourse in psychotherapy. Adding to these the requirement of multiple acceptability is the necessary step for creating rational dialogue in the new pluralistic world.

Psychoanalytic psychotherapy with Asian clients: Transference and therapeutic considerations.

“…Rather, I am advocating for the Western therapist to actively self-reflect on the value-laden nature of her theories and to guard against reification of those values as universal. Furthermore, I am not advocating an extreme cultural relativism which is at times, as Strenger and Omer (1992) noted, characterized by "a gleeful embrace of the new freedom epitomized in the anarchistic cry of 'anything goes.'" Rather, I am advocating a clinical application of an approach that Gergen (1994) called "an invitation to reflexivity (italics added) encouraging one to consider all propositional realities and dictates as local, provisional, and political.…”

Ethnic identity formation: From stage theory to a constructivist narrative model.

“…A coherent narrative is, therefore, an internally consistent narrative that provides order and unity to the data of the person’s life (Strenger, 1991). In contrast, the pragmatic value of a narrative has to do with how useful the narrative is in facilitating the treatment process (internal pragmatic value) and in contributing to client improvement (external pragmatic value) (Strenger & Omer, 1992). A narrative that helps to facilitate the therapeutic process is a “better” narrative than one that does not engage the client or deepen therapeutic exploration (Strenger & Omer, 1992).…”

“…In contrast, the pragmatic value of a narrative has to do with how useful the narrative is in facilitating the treatment process (internal pragmatic value) and in contributing to client improvement (external pragmatic value) (Strenger & Omer, 1992). A narrative that helps to facilitate the therapeutic process is a “better” narrative than one that does not engage the client or deepen therapeutic exploration (Strenger & Omer, 1992). A narrative may have internal pragmatic value, however, without having external pragmatic value, in other words, without improving the client’s functioning or well-being (Strenger & Omer, 1992).…”

“…A narrative that helps to facilitate the therapeutic process is a “better” narrative than one that does not engage the client or deepen therapeutic exploration (Strenger & Omer, 1992). A narrative may have internal pragmatic value, however, without having external pragmatic value, in other words, without improving the client’s functioning or well-being (Strenger & Omer, 1992). A narrative that ultimately promotes the client’s well-being is a “better” narrative than one that yields little to no change in the client’s functioning.…”

The contemporary psychotherapeutic landscape: Issues and prospects.

“…Another solution to the absence of a true, single measure of the validity of a therapeutic construct is to use instead a multiplicity of pragmatic criteria. Strenger and Omer (1992), for example, have proposed evaluation of therapeutic constructs by the degree to which they are acceptable to four relevant groups: clients, clinicians, the academic community, and the lay public. Thus, with regard to the utility of a therapeutic construct or intervention, clients should show increased willingness to perform therapeutic tasks, clinicians would note whether the construct or intervention activates important therapeutic processes, academics would apply accepted research criteria, and laymen would judge improvement in terms of commonsense variables such as cost-effectiveness and improvement in daily living.…”