Postmodernism

Description

(written in the context of therapeutic practice)

By Emiliano Gonzalez & Marie Faubert:

(and Phenomenology)

"An alternative perspective to Modernism is postmodernism. Klages (2005) states that modernism gave way to postmodernism. Stapa (2016) affirms that the arrival of postmodernism was the end of modernism. The term “postmodern” can be traced to the historian Arnold Toynbee in the late 1940’s who applied this concept as a way to critique the rigid rationalism of the modernist approach, especially in what he called the “schism of the soul” experienced after World War II; however, he provided no definition.

Stapa (2016) states postmodernism tends to be complex and over time the definition changes making it difficult to define. He further states that specific and fixed terms, boundaries and truths are almost non-existence. This is important in how we understand counseling perspectives that have developed within a postmodern perspective. Toynbee was emulating the art historian Roger Fry who used the term “Postimpressionism” as a way to distinguish the artistic style made after society accepted Impressionism; the prefix “post” meant very little, except that time had transpired from one movement to another, but not that the previous style had expired (1911). In other words, Postimpressionism’s very definition and existence depended on the persistent advancements made by Impressionism; likewise, what is sometimes referred to as postmodern counseling today tends to be grounded in modernist practice approaches. With that said, modernism assumed, somewhat naively, that people were developing towards complete rational behavior and objectivity in an evolutionary sense. On the other hand, postmodernism recognizes that people and human behavior is complex, sometimes rational and sometimes emotional, and thus subjective. Crouse (2005) states that in postmodernism, there is “no one (true) world view that offers an explanation to all life’s issues and that paradigms are valid only within a community.”

Agger (1991) posits from a pragmatic perspective that the “social world from the multiple perspectives of class, race, gender and other identifying group affiliations” are examined to deconstruct existing versions of social reality and give voice to the ‘other’ whose voice may have been lost due to the positivism/modernism approach. Agger (1991) further adds that knowledge tends to be contextualized by its historical and cultural nature and that particular modes of knowledge can be defined by the multiplicity of people’s subject positions. Other authors emphasize this but also consider the different social, historical, political, financial, spiritual, cultural, and linguistic aspects, and each person’s varied experiences (Stapa, 2016; Crouse, 2013; Akuul, 2010; Ghisi, 2008; Schulte & Cochrane, 1995). From the perspective of postmodernism, clients are authorities of their own lives (Anderson, 1997).

Akuul (2010) suggests that there is always more than one perspective and each perspective represents a particular world view. As such, collaborative-dialogic practice requires counselors to relate to clients from an open, accepting, and respectful perspective (Schulte & Cochrane, 1995). And, to try to understand a client’s reality and world view. Clients understand themselves better than anyone else. Therefore, Collaborative-dialogic counselors want to listen to hear, wondering and being curious, and always wanting and trying to make sure they understand what they hear, what the client wants them to understand. Prochaska & Norcross (2010) suggest Collaborative-dialogic counselors guide clients through the processes of change in general. That is, most clients come to counseling because they want to change or want something in their lives to change. They may even have successfully changed in the past and may have developed strategies and techniques (their knowledge) with which they are already comfortable and competent.

Durning (1993) states that postmodernism rejects the tenets of positivism and uses phenomenology to interpret the nature of knowledge by using a hermeneutic paradigm of inquiry. The ideas of order, coherence, sequence, scientific truths, cause and effect are questioned and challenged; and life experiences and situations may be thought of as open-ended.. Acknowledging the client’s knowledge of their life is part of a redistribution or equalization of power and allows counselors to participate and walk with their clients in a process of deconstructing, constructing and reconstructing their knowledge and thus new ways of knowing evolve. The client is involved in this process of making decisions. Not every counselor is comfortable with this approach. A redistribution of control over the direction of therapy can be seen as a loss of power or being in charge; many have no qualms with moving from the familiar to the unfamiliar while for others, this process can be nerve wracking (Castillo, 1983).

Anderson (1997) and Anderson & Gehart (2017) point out the subjective view of clients about their own lives is essential to effective outcomes in therapy. Anderson (1997) uses the phrase not knowing to describe this sensitivity to the world views and perspectives of clients. Another way of thinking about collaborative-dialogic practice is to think of counselors walking with clients. The conversation between them is mutual and reciprocal as they engage with each other in a dialogic process of looking into what the client is concerned about. The word dialogic in collaborative-dialogic practice is essential. Dialogic implies equality and equity between counselors and clients. counselors can be dialogic with clients only when they respect clients as equal human beings, equal persons; when there is no one true world view (Crouse, 2013)."

(https://ijcp.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/ijcp-issue-9-p.-143-156-gonzalez-and-faubert-transmodern-and-collaborative-dialogic-practice-english.pdf)

Characteristics

By Emiliano Gonzalez & Marie Faubert:

1. "All aspects of the universe are interconnected; it is impossible to separate figure from ground and subject from object;

2. There are no absolutes; thus, human functioning cannot be reduced to laws or principles, and human behavior cannot be reduced to notions of cause and effect;

3. Human behavior can be understood only in the context in which it occurs;

4. The subjective frame of reference of human beings is the only legitimate source of knowledge;

5. Truth is relative from one individual to another as personal views and opinions differ respecting and valuing inclusive beliefs of each individual; and

6. Events occur outside human beings. As persons understand their environment and participate in these events, they define themselves and their environment."

(https://ijcp.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/ijcp-issue-9-p.-143-156-gonzalez-and-faubert-transmodern-and-collaborative-dialogic-practice-english.pdf)