Some reflections on the therapeutic power of poststructuralism

Abstract

Abstract. Social constructionism is fast gaining currency as a major theory of social and personal change. Although its origins are in philosophy and sociology, social constructionism has major implications for psychology, and in particular, for applied psychology. This paper looks at some of the poststructuralist assumptions which underpin social constructionism, contrasting these with some of the major beliefs upon which much of humanistic psychology is based. It argues that many of the practices of liberal humanistic psychology are fundamentally pessimistic, in that they essentialise aspects of the 'self' and the personality, suggesting strategies of adaptation rather than personal transformation. Further, the absence of an adequate psychological theory of context renders applied psychology all but helpless in confronting issues of power and social control. P0ststructuralist theory suggests ways of theorising human interactions without denying agency, or indeed, claiming too much. The paper suggests ways in which counsellors are well placed to take theoretical and practical advantage of these perspectives.

The Value of Social Constructionism for the Counseling Profession: A Reply to Hansen

“…In this reply, we take the position, similar to other counseling theorists (e.g., Atwood, 1993;Chen, Noosbond, & Bruce, 1998;Drewery & Monk, 1994;Guterman, 1994;Lyddon, 1995), that social constructionism is a useful framework for counseling. In contrast to ISE, social constructionism offers us alternative ways of understanding how we come to know clients' experiences.…”

“…In particular, professionals in the field of counseling have developed an increasing number of models that are informed by social constructionism (e.g., Atwood, 1993;Chen et al, 1998;Drewery & Monk, 1994;Guterman, 1996a;Lyddon, 1995). Although these models vary in some respects, they all tend to share the view that clinical problems are cocreated in social conversation.…”

“…In the past 2 decades, various social constructionist models have been developed in the mental health disciplines (see, e.g., Anderson, 1996;de Shazer, 1991;Howard, 1991;Mair, 1988;White & Epston, 1990). In particular, professionals in the field of counseling have developed an increasing number of models that are informed by social constructionism (e.g., Atwood, 1993;Chen et al, 1998;Drewery & Monk, 1994;Guterman, 1996a;Lyddon, 1995). Although these models vary in some respects, they all tend to share the view that clinical problems are cocreated in social conversation.…”

Unpacking the Tough Guise: Toward a Discursive Approach for Working with Men in Family Therapy

“…We suggest that the therapeutic importance of the dynamic concepts of discourse and positioning cannot be overestimated. The advantages of shedding essentialist thinking are that it helps prevent totalizing and blaming descriptions and offers clients the freedom to think and be otherwise which can be extremely liberating (Drewery & Monk, 1994). We propose that whereas essentialist thinking does not easily permit change, social constructionism, on the other hand, takes change for granted.…”

Conversational Resources for Clinical Practice with Families: Social Construction in Action

“…Words gain meaning in their use in situated linguistic practices (Gergen, ), and meanings are a central aspect of therapeutic processes (McNamee, ). Through the active negotiation that transpires in the therapy setting, ‘we are able to construct both problems themselves, and the ways in which we “explain” and “treat” them’ (Drewery & Monk, , p. 308).…”