The Postmodern Psychotherapies
The most obvious ways postmodernism influences psychotherapy is through the development of therapy orientations that are distinctively postmodern. A number of therapies can be seen as falling into this category.

Narrative therapy often is cited as the quintessential postmodern therapy. This approach to therapy emerged in the postmodern period from a postmodern epistemology. It blends social constructivism with personal constructivism to create an understanding of people and therapy that is decidedly postmodern. However, being the quintessential postmodern therapy doesn’t mean that it is the only or best postmodern approach. Several other approaches have taken decidedly postmodern trends.

Contemporary Psychoanalysis (often referred to as Relational Psychoanalysis) set itself apart from earlier approaches to psychoanalysis (e.g., Freudian, Object Relations, Self Psychology) by becoming distinctively postmodern (Hoffman, Hoffman, Robison, & Lawrence, 2005). Social constructivist and intersubjective approaches to psychoanalysis generally are categorized as variants of Contemporary Psychoanalysis.

Existential and Humanistic psychotherapies began showing strong postmodern trends before postmodernism was a well-known term (Hoffman, 2004). Both of these approaches emphasize subjectivity, limits in the human ability to know, and utilization of multiple ways of knowing.

These are just a few of the more evident postmodern trends in psychotherapy. However, most psychotherapy orientations have variants which are embracing and integrating postmodern ideas.

Psychotherapy Research and Outcome Studies
New trends in Evidence Based Practice also demonstrate postmodern themes. Psychology, particularly clinical psychology, spent many years attempting to become a hard science. This often involved deluding itself about how objective and true psychological research could be. Empirical and neurological research was the champion of this movement. In the end, this enterprise failed, often making the field of psychology look quite foolish.

In the attempts to become a hard science, psychology developed the empirically validated treatment (EVT) and empirically supported treatment (EST) movements. These promoted manualized treatments, the therapist’s knowledge and skill, and self-report ratings of psychological health as the key to successful therapy. Over time, increasing evidence from meta-analyses and literature reviews provided strong evidence of the flawed ways of EVT and EST movements. Instead, they suggested that client factors and the therapy relationship were the most important factors in successful outcome (Horvath & Bedi, 2002; Lambert & Barley, 2002; Wampold, .
Ron Levant, during his tenure as president of the American Psychological Association, encouraged the development of Evidence Based Practice. This alternative to the EVT and EST approach included a broader understanding of what was evidence of successful therapy outcomes. Levant (2005) encouraged practitioners from various approaches to join in the discussion of how Evidence-Based Practice should be defined. It is a concern that if practitioners do not actively seek to define this broadly, it could end up being defined the same as the ESTs.

A broad understanding of Evidence-Based Practice could include multiple sources of knowledge (i.e., an epistemological pluralism) as valid in supporting psychotherapeutic practice. It also opens doors to qualitative research, expert opinion, and well-established theory as valid sources of support for the effectiveness of a treatment modality.
Support for this trend can also be seen in the push for multimethod research. The American Psychological Association Press recently released its first book on multimethod research (Eid & Diener, 2005). Similarly, other recent books seek to integrate qualitative and quantitative research methodologies (Creswell, 2002; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Thomas, 2003). Furthermore, more researchers are acknowledging the limitations of research as an objective source of knowledge that can be generalized across people and settings.

Understanding Psychotherapy in a Different Light
A modernist perspective purports that therapy evaluated through objective scientific research can determine the efficaciousness of a therapy modality. Furthermore, modernism advocates that treatment modalities with empirical support are therefore superior. Postmodernism calls this premise into question on a number of grounds.

First, postmodernism questions the ability of empirical research to be objective. Different types of research are more appropriate for evaluating different approaches to therapy (Hoffman, 2005). The measurement must be consistent with the theory; otherwise epistemological problems threaten the validity of the research.

Second, while all psychotherapies share the goal to decrease symptoms, at least to some degree, and to increase the quality of life, they disagree on what this looks like. In other words, not all psychotherapies seek the same ends (Hoffman, 2005). This makes it very difficult to consider which approach to therapy is best for which client.

A third concern relates to client values. If different therapies have different values and lead to slightly different ends, then which approach to therapy is best for a client is, in part, a values decision (Hoffman, 2005). In other words, both values and effectiveness need to be considered when making choices about which approach to psychotherapy is best.

The field of psychotherapy has often looked foolish by engaging in petty debates over which approach to therapy is best. Postmodernism responds by stating this is not even the right question! It is not possible to determine which therapy is superior because it depends upon too many client and therapist factors. Furthermore, when therapists are making the determination of which approach is best, they are taking responsibility away from their clients and imposing their values system upon them. Instead, therapists should work with client to help them decide which therapy approach best fits the client’s goals and values.

Postmodernism and the Client Condition
Rollo May (1991) purports that a leading reason clients enter therapy today is because of the loss of sustaining myths. According to May, myths are not something which are false, but rather something which cannot be proven to be true. As such, all psychotherapy orientations, religions, and worldviews are myths.

This idea applies directly to the postmodern condition. Although most clients entering the therapy room have little knowledge or understanding of postmodernism, it still influences their lives on a daily basis. The postmodern deconstruction of modern myths creates a sense of anxiety and lack of meaning for many individuals. Even if postmodernism is an improvement upon modernism, it is natural that the transition will create anxiety. However, this anxiety is likely to remain largely in the realm of individual and cultural unconscious.

Therapists working with clients in the postmodern age need to be aware of the impact of postmodernism even if their clients are ardent modernists or premodernists. No one escapes the influences of such a drastic paradigm shift.

Postmodernism, Power, and Psychotherapy
In modern and premodern approaches to therapy and counseling, the therapist had the privileged position. It was the therapist who determined appropriate therapy outcomes, defined the approach to therapy, and led the way. There is a significant power differential between therapist and clients in this perspective.

Postmodernism de-emphasizes the hierarchy implicit in modern and premodern psychotherapies. Additionally, the postmodern therapies tend to enlist clients as co-creators and co-facilitators in the therapy process. Similar to many feminists approaches, postmodernism tends to identify the hierarchy and power differential as a social construction rather than an absolute reality. As such, the power differential can still be exploited and, in fact, increases the potential for exploitation.
Influences from feminist, humanistic, and existential theories are fairly evident in postmodern psychotherapy’s conception of power and hierarchy. Although all of these approaches recognize that power differentials inevitably develop and that it is important for the therapist to recognize these, they differ in their perspectives on how to approach them. Many of these approaches believe that part of the therapy process is deconstructing these artificial hierarchies and power structures.

Conclusion

Postmodernism is changing the fact of psychotherapy in many ways that often goes unnoticed to practitioners. As we continue to move into the postmodern era, these influences will only strengthen making it irresponsible for therapists to not understand these changes.

References

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eid, M. & Diener, E. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of multimethod research in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Hoffman, L. (2004, August/September). The danger of the “truth.” AHP Perspectives, 22-24.

Hoffman, L. (2005). Depth psychotherapy and the empirically supported movement: Critica lissues.  Retrieved from the Depth Psychotherapy Network web site: http://www.depth-psychotherapy-network.com/Professional_Section/Empirically/
Hoffman_EST_1.htm

Hoffman, L., Hoffman, J., Robison, B., & Lawrence, K. (2005, April). Modern and postmodern ways of knowing: Implications for therapy and integration. Paper presented at the Christian Association for Psychological Studies International Conferences, Dallas, TX.

Horvath, A. O. & Bedi, R. P. (2002). The allilance. Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work (pp. 37-69). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lambert, M. J. & Barley, D. E. (2002). Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work (pp. 17-32). New York: Oxford University Press.

Levant, R. (2005, Feb). Evidence-based practice in psychotherapy. Monitor on Psychology, 36, 5.

May, R. (1991). The cry for myth. New York: Delta.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. B. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Hopefully, by this time, you, the reader, are able to recognize that these arguments are not an accurate or valid criticism of postmodernism. There are few, if any, postmodernists who would maintain that murder, rape, and child abuse are morally acceptable. What differs is how they go about condemning these behaviors.

Ethics and Postmodernism
At minimum, there are three important postmodern alternatives to that of extreme relativism. First, and most simply, is a utilitarian argument based upon the Golden Rule. This approach would suggest that there is need for a social contract for society to exist. As such, because people desire to live free of murder, rape, child abuse, and other crimes, they agree to not engage in these behaviors. Although this perspective does not state that these are morally wrong, it does provide a way to provide a way to limit these from occurring.

A second, somewhat more sophisticated perspective, maintains that ethics and morality are socially constructed. All, or nearly all, cultures of the world have prohibitions against murder and child abuse, which is often used an argument these must be knowable Ultimate Truths. However, there are a couple of limitations to this argument. For one, what constitutes child abuse, rape, and murder differs from culture to culture. For example, many behaviors that would be constituted as child abuse, rape, or murder in contemporary Western cultures have been viewed as permissible or encouraged in other cultures or Western culture at different points of history.

Because cultural analysis demonstrates that there are cultural variants in all these themes, it can be argued that ethics and morality are always socially constructed. The similarity which arises, such as all cultures having some prohibitions around killing other people, is based on the need to construct such rules for people to survive. In other words, it develops out of necessity relevant to survival which arises in cultures, not from a Universal Truth which each culture has discovered.

A third perspective arises from a postmodern realist or critical realist perspective. Postmodern realists purport that some Ultimate Truths may exist; however, we are not able to fully know these truths. Additionally, they generally believe that many truths we believe to be objective or universal are not. In this perspective, the immorality of murder, child abuse, and rape may very well all be Universal Truths; however, these truths cannot be fully known. This accounts for the variations in how each of these is interpreted in different cultures. Additionally, this perspective would state that while there may be some Universal Truths, many other laws or ethics codes which have been created and treated as ultimate truth (i.e., reified) are, in fact, relative or socially constructed truths.

Psychotherapy Ethics in a Postmodern Perspective
Counseling, therapy, and psychotherapy in a postmodern perspective all could be considered socially constructed practices. These are not Ultimate realities which Freud and others have discovered. People have created each of these yet we often treat them with such reverence that it would be easy to believe there is some ultimate form of psychotherapy. This idea is reflected in many of the empiricists who seek to “prove” one therapy is the best therapy and believe that eventually science can determine which therapy is best for who at what time. When one steps back and looks at such an idea from a postmodern perspective, the absurdity of it quickly becomes fairly evident.

If psychotherapy is socially constructed, then the ethics which govern it also are socially constructed. It can be noted that most psychologists, and definitely most governing boards of psychologists, treat the various ethics codes as if they were Ultimate Truths which they have discovered and delineated. Let me be clear, I am not proposing that we should do away with the ethics codes or simply choose not to follow them because we recognize they are socially constructed and therefore flawed. What I am proposing is that it is important for us to recognize the nature of ethics codes as socially constructed.
Why is this such an important point? Let me propose two primary reasons. First, when we reify ethics codes in a manner so that we begin treating them as an Ultimate Truth, we no longer critically think about what is ethical; we just assume the ethics code is correct. This does not allow for the ethics code to be further refined or adapted to contextual situations, new developments, and new insights. In the end, we do a disservice to ethical living and practice when we stop thinking about ethics in a critical manner and no longer recognize that these are socially constructed truths developed in a particular culture and time.

Second, recognizing the constructed nature of therapy is imperative to culturally sensitive practice. For example, psychotherapy in many other countries has very different standards regarding boundaries and standards of practice. I have witnessed a number of United States psychologists who have looked down on students and therapists from other cultures often talking to them in a condescending manner because they have different standards of ethical practice. Additionally, I have many times heard United States psychologists make the statement that these cultures obviously are not as evolved or enlightened in their therapeutic practice. Such statements, in my mind, are offensive and unethical.

Ethics, in a postmodern perspective, must be understood contextually. What is ethical in one context may not be ethical in another. Let me provide an example of this. In the United States, there are strong prohibitions about touch in therapy which are not present in other cultures. In general, people in the United States, particularly Caucasians, tend to be less comfortable with touch. Given this, it is more likely that these same people would perceive or experience non-sexual touch as abusive. In other cultures, where the same touch is more acceptable, touch may be therapeutic.

In the United States, many therapists and governing boards strongly discourage touch. This has translated into encouraging people practicing in other countries to do the same. However, it could also be argued that people in the United States have a touch phobia or a tendency toward pathologically fearing touch; therefore, working through this should encourage touch in psychotherapy. From a postmodern perspective, this could be a valid critique of psychotherapy in the United States.
Again, I am not encouraging therapists to engage in touch in therapy. This is a decision that each therapist practicing needs to consider in the context of regional and national ethics codes, standards of practice, and personal comfort along with consideration to individual client’s needs and values. What I am encouraging is for therapists to think about touch contextually and critically.

A Postmodern Approach to Ethical Practice
In this section, I will propose two approaches to ethics: an ideal and a practical. In practice, I would encourage therapists to use the practical approach. However, I think the ideal also has important concepts for therapists to consider when making ethical decisions. Let me preface in stating that this is a very general overview and each perspective needs further development. In this section, by ethical I mean that which serves the client’s greater good and goals as collaboratively defined by the client and the therapist.

A Postmodern Ideal. Ideally, all ethical decisions should be considered in the personal, social, cultural, and theoretical context. By personal, I mean personal factors with both the therapist and the client. What is ethical practice for one therapist may not be ethical for a different therapist; similarly, what is ethical with one client may not be ethical with another. By social and cultural, I mean that there are factors in the immediate social context as well as cultural context that help determine what is ethical. Finally, by theoretical I am advocating that what is ethical and considered best practices must be considered in the context of the theoretical orientation or approach to therapy being applied.

The essence of this ethic is that it is contextually driven toward a goal or goals which are mutually agreed upon by the therapist and client. These goals are flexible and may grow and change as therapy progresses. As is evident, this idea is very ambiguous and abstract making it difficult to apply. For this reason, a more practical alternative may be beneficial.
A Practical Postmodern Alternative. Delineating an ethics code, instead of relying upon more flexible general ethical principles, is a concession to make ethics more practical, easy to enforce, and better able to protect clients from therapists with harmful intentions. It is helpful to keep in mind that the principles, though more ambiguous, reflect a higher, though less clear, ethic. A more pragmatic postmodern approach to ethics relies upon this understanding.
In this concession, the ethics code takes on a higher priority. It is the responsibility of the ethical postmodern therapist to do their best to follow the ethics code governing their local practice unless doing so may cause harm to the client. In such a situation, it is imperative that the therapist consult with other professionals and the appropriate governing bodies. This is particularly important with the recognition that it is possible to personally construct anything as ethical.  However, as much as possible, the therapist should continue to take into consideration the personal, social, cultural, and theoretical context.
The examination of the personal, social, cultural, and theoretical context will at times, maybe often, point out limitations in the ethics code. At such times, the postmodern therapist should seek to address this in the psychological community in order to promote change and greater sensitivity. By engaging the professional community, he or she engages the social constructive aspect of ethics. This engagement is important in the distinction between an ethics which promotes a moral extreme relativism and a socially constructed ethics.

It may be evident that the ideal reflects an understanding of ethics that is very similar to higher levels of morality in Kohlberg’s theory (stage 6) with some constructivist revisions while also bearing some similarities to Gilligan’s alternative to Kohlberg, which is built upon a feminist critique. The more practical alternative reflects a lower level in Kohlberg stages (stage 5) which may be necessary given social realities.

Conclusion
Ethics are ambiguous and difficult. Any attempt to simplify ethics to a code or list of rules and prohibitions will create problems. The postmodern perspective on ethics developed here suggests that a more practical compromise between the very abstract, ambiguous principles and the more concrete, overly-simplistic ethics code is needed. While this is less than ideal, it provides a framework for postmodern therapists to balance their postmodern ethical sensitivities with a field that often relies on more concrete ethical codes which lack needed sensitivity to contextual issues.

Added December, 2006
Never been updated

A Postmodernism Response to Specialization
Postmodernism, in many ways, favors the continued development of new specializations through its acceptance of multiple approaches to investigation. It is not threatened by the increasing of number of specialties within psychology. Postmodernism does, however, believe that it is important for these different approaches to be in dialogue with each other.
As the different specialties dialogue, it is important that each subject open to being influenced by the other. For example, when experts in quantitative and qualitative research dialogue, it is important for both sides to remain open to recognizing the limitations of their approach and the benefits of the other. Additionally, they should seek to learn how they can improve their own approach through the ideas of the other. Similarly, when psychodynamic therapists dialogue with neuropsychology, it is important for both sides to remain open.
In the modern area, it would be easy to say that the quantitative researchers and the neuropsychologists held the trump cards and were in the position to educate the lesser psychodynamic therapist and qualitative researchers. Postmodernism has pointed out the errors of this approach to dialogue.

A Postmodern Response to the Diversity of Theoretical Orientations
Modernist epistemology is the root of one of psychology’s most embarrassing public debates. Until the last several years, one of the most intense disagreements among psychotherapists was regarding which approach to therapy (i.e., theoretical orientation) was the best. This debate continues in some circles of psychotherapists. In the light of postmodernism, such debates seem irrelevant and futile.
Since different approaches to psychotherapy have different inherent epistemologies, the way to measure their effectiveness will vary in accordance with their epistemological beliefs. Each therapy will likely emerge with more positive outcomes than “the competitors” when measured in accordance with its epistemology and an appropriately-related methodology. Additionally, different approaches to therapy have different ideas of the good life. While some purport happiness or symptom relief represents the good life; others suggest that a self-aware life, a free life, or a virtuous life is a better sought after outcome.
The best example of this problem relates to the empirically supported treatment debate which ravaged so heatedly in the 1990s and early 2000s (Hoffman, 2005). A modernist epistemology still reigned supreme in psychology and a narrowly defined empirical approach (i.e., quantitative research) was seen as the supreme way to evaluate therapy. As this fit with the epistemology of cognitive-behavior, rational-emotive, and behavioral therapy, these approaches tended to fair better than many of the depth psychotherapies.
Postmodern helped level the playing field by pointing out the epistemological errors associated with attempting to prove the superiority of any one approach to therapy through empirical means. New approaches to evaluating the efficacy of psychotherapy incorporate an epistemological pluralism (i.e., evidence based practice) which allows for multiple approaches to evaluating the effectiveness of therapy to be recognized as valid (see Levant, 2005). Additionally, more consideration is given to common factors, such as the therapy relationship, which facilitate positive therapy outcomes regardless of the therapeutic orientation.
The most important change, however, is the consideration given to the client’s values and desired outcome of therapy. It is important for therapists to be aware of the different approaches to therapy and what they can help the client accomplish. For example, various approaches to therapy can help client’s understand how their unresolved childhood issues impact their present relationships; however, the psychodynamic approaches are more effective at accomplishing this. Conversely, cognitive approaches tend to be a better fit for client who desire quick relief from difficult emotional issues, particularly if the client is not interested in increasing self-awareness. In other words, it is more important to match the client with the type of therapy and therapist who best meets their needs. This is a significant improvement from the petty, egocentric battles over which approach to therapy is best.

The Move from Eclectic to Integrative Therapy
The ideas of eclectic and integrative therapy are both distinctly postmodern in many ways. Eclectic therapy acknowledges that different therapies work better for different people. Thus, a pragmatic approach is utilized in which whatever approach works with a client is used. While the eclectic approach was popular for a while, it has more recently fallen into ill repute.
The problem with the eclectic approach was a lack of depth. It takes many years to become an expert at any one approach to therapy; to assume anyone could become an expert at many different approaches to therapy is unreasonable. Eclectic therapy became a “bag of tricks” approach to therapy that often was inconsistent with itself and applied by therapists who had never become skilled or experts in any singular approach to therapy.
The integrative viewpoint is a much more sophisticated approach to therapy. It differs from the eclectic approach in that it suggests a foundation or center of practice. For example, Schneider proposed an existential-integrative therapy. In this approach, existential theory forms the foundation of practice; however, it integrates from other theories in order to broaden and strengthen its practice. This creates a flexibility in which existential therapy can be adapted to meet the needs of more clients while expanding its theoretical basis.
Integrative therapy does create some limitations as compared to the eclectic approach. Whereas eclectic pulls from theories very liberally and quickly adapts to new ideas, the integrative approach incorporate new ideas or techniques more thoughtfully. For example, in the existential-integrative theory, all that is integrated is tested against the foundation of existential theory. If what is being integrated does not fit, then one of two things must happen: adjustments must be made to existential theory or the proposed idea needs to be discarded.
As is illustrated in this discussion, the key differences between an eclectic and an integrative approach is the foundation and the concern for internal consistency. Therapists will provide better services if their theory is consistent with their beliefs or values and if it remains internally consistent. From a postmodern perspective, two red flags can be noted in this discussion of the integrative approach.
First, postmodernism is opposed to the foundational approaches to knowledge that dominated in modern and premodern times. Although this is a valid concern, it is more a limitation in language. The idea of having a foundation in the integrative approach is not to say that there is an base of Ultimate Truth which everything should be tested against; rather, it is used to indicate that a theory should be internally consistent.
Second, by indicating an approach to therapy should be consistent with the therapist’s values, this could be interpreted as suggesting these values are then imposed on clients. To a degree this is true; however, it is no more true than of any other approach to therapy. Therapists always will inadvertently impose their values on their clients at times. This occurs more often if therapists are unaware of their values or the values implicit in their approach to therapy. In other words, the integrative psychotherapies seek to decrease the imposition of values by encouraging therapists to critically think through the values associated with their therapeutic orientation. By being aware of their values, they can better avoid imposing them on clients.
A final concern with the integrative psychotherapies pertains to what clients are appropriate for a therapist to work with. Through developing a niche, therapists are focusing on a more narrowly defined clientele, or at least it seems that way. To a degree, this is true, particularly early on in a therapist’s career. However, this is also not completely true.
The integrative psychotherapies encourage clients to become well-grounded in a particular theory in order to develop expertise in that approach to therapy. Initially, this may limit their clientele. However, as they begin to learn how to adapt this theory and integrate aspects of other orientations, they are better able to meet the needs of a wide range of clients where they are at in a manner consistent with their values.

Eclectic to Integrative: An Illustration of the Development of Postmodernism
A valid early critique of postmodernism is that it focused primarily, if not exclusively, on deconstructing modernism and essentially promoting a rather an over-simplistic relativism. However, over time, postmodernism began to develop a more sophisticated and constructive perspectives such as epistemological pluralism (Hoffman, Hoffman, Robison, & Lawrence, 2005; Hoffman, Stewart, Warren, & Meek, 2006) and ontological holism (Murphy, 1996).
The move from eclectic to integrative psychotherapies mimics this progression. Eclecticism, as an initial attempt to utilize postmodern sensitivities in the inter-theory dialogue, took a more relativistic and over-simplistic approach. However, the integrative approach demonstrates postmodern ideas with increasing depth and sophistication of thought. Integrative approaches draw from multiple approaches while recognizing the need for internal consistency.

Conclusion
The postmodern push for interdisciplinary dialogue can also be applied to intrapersonal disciplinary dialogue. Differences should not be feared, but embraced. However, it is imperative to be in dialogue about the disparities. In the modern period, such dialogues would take the tone of which approach is better while in the postmodern period the focus is on mutual understanding and growth. Dialogue offers the promise of growth instead of division.

References

Hoffman, L. (2005). Depth psychotherapy and the empirically supported movement: Critica lissues.  Retrieved from the Depth Psychotherapy Network web site: http://www.depth-psychotherapy-network.com/Professional _Section/Empirically/Hoffman_EST_1.htm

Hoffman, L., Hoffman, J., Robison, B., & Lawrence, K. (2005, April). Modern and postmodern ways of knowing: Implications for therapy and integration. Paper presented at the Christian Association for Psychological Studies International Conferences, Dallas, TX.

Hoffman, L., Stewart, S., Warren, D., & Meek, L. (2006, August). Multiple selves in postmodern therapy: An existential integrative critique. Paper presented at the American Psycholoigcal Associations Annual Convention, New Orleans, LA.

Levant, R. (2005, Feb). Evidence-based practice in psychotherapy. Monitor on Psychology, 36, 5.

Murphy, N. (1996). Beyond liberalism and fundamentalism: How the modern and postmodern philosophy set the theological agenda. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Schneider, K. (in press). Existential-integrative psychotherapy: Guideposts to the core of practice.

Schneider, K. J. & May, R. (1995). The psychology of existence: An integrative, clinical perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Modernism and Specialization
Modernism and the Enlightenment increased the quantity of knowledge to an extraordinary degree. At one time, it was possible to know almost all there was to know about a particular discipline, such as psychology, biology, or even medicine. Today, thanks in part to modernism, it is hard to fathom many, if any, fields of academic thought where one individual could master the majority of the field’s content!
The modern period also promoted a reductionistic understanding of knowledge which separated knowledge from content. The objectivism focus suggested that knowledge was true regardless of its context. For example, it was believed that the essence of happiness or psychological health could be determined through psychological science. Once this was discovered, it could be applied to any person in any culture or context. For most academics today, an idea like this seems naïve. To force a particular view of psychological health on a culture is a dangerously oppressive metanarrative.
The proliferation of knowledge, along with the belief that knowledge could be studied objectively apart from its content, created the context for independent specializations to develop. The various academic fields, including psychology, developed many sub-disciplines or specialties. While it was still required to have a mastery of the general content of a field, what was considered general was often very basic and most professionals spent the majority of their career focusing their specializations.

The Battleground and the Cost of the Battle
The modern situation depicted above created the context for a battleground between disciplines and specialties about who was the true authoritative source of knowledge. This is illustrated in the debates between social work, psychology, and psychiatry in the mental health fields. Instead of dialoguing about what each field could contribute, the conversation emerged as a debate about who was most authoritative on the topic.
Everyone lost in modern’s discipline wars. People had to choose between science or religion, sociology or psychology, and psychology or biology. The loss can be illustrated in problems that the field of psychology is still trying to recover from. As psychology focused on the individual with the assumption that what is good for one is good for all, the understanding of social influences and culture was downplayed. While psychology generally acknowledges the importance of these today, most psychology programs still focus most of their time myopically on the individual or even parts of the individual. Furthermore, contemporary psychology often appears developmentally delayed when dealing with social and cultural issues.

Deconstructing Epistemological Narcissism
Postmodernism began with a distrust of authority and quickly initiated the task of deconstructing power structures. This undermined the authority of specialists through exposing their ignorance about many issues relevant within their specialty. For example, in the modern period it was easy to maintain that depression was a biological illness which could be studied through physiology without considering psychological or social factors. While this is still a very popular perspective today, it is much easier to deconstruct the rhetoric supporting this viewpoint.
The Diathesis Stress Model provides an illustration of this example. This model purports that both a biological predisposition and an environmental trigger is necessary for many psychological illnesses to develop. Depth psychology demonstrated the role of personal history and the unconscious in the etiology of depression for many people. Cultural studies and social psychology provided evidence for the role of social factors in depression. The popular biopsychosocial model attempts to integrate these varying influences in understanding mental illness.
Neuropsychology can provide another example. At one time, the functioning of the brain was seen as the cause of psychological experience, but not impacted much by it. Today, many neuropsychologists are interested in how interpersonal relationships, spirituality, and other environmental factors change the brain. This expands the scope of neuropsychology while at the same time delimiting its role as a sole, independent determinant of behavior and psychological health.
These examples are only the beginning the new interdisciplinary focus. Many new dialogues are emerging with greater openness. Science and religion have returned to mutually beneficial dialogues. Psychology is interacting with neurology, sociology, and cultural studies. The hard sciences are examining their philosophical underpinnings and acknowledging the role of culture in interpreting science. These dialogues are now understood as essential for the development of each discipline.
Epistemological humility, which is an important postmodern idea, is a necessary precondition for the productivity of these conversations. Epistemological humility is not the same things as epistemological relativism, which would purport that all epistemologies are equal. Instead, epistemological humility states that no epistemology is complete; however, some ways of knowing are still more authoritative in some contexts. For example, psychology is more authoritative than quantum physics when discussing mental health; however, psychology can not fully explain mental illness and may be able to learn from quantum physics.

The Postmodern Context
The postmodern world advocates that interdisciplinary dialogues are not only beneficial, but necessary. Each discipline benefits from being in dialogue with as many other fields as possible. These conversations are at their best when they are open, considering different viewpoints and maintaining willingness reconsidering long held beliefs in the light of new information from other disciplines. When this occurs, interdisciplinary dialogues reflect the postmodernism idea of epistemological pluralism at its best.

Posted December 2006
Never updated

Most reader’s should not be surprised that what is really meant by realism varies from theorist to theorist. In other words, there is no absolute answer and there is not agreement upon what it means in a larger sense. However, there are some tendencies that we can point toward. In general, realism is the believe there there is an absolute truth or ultimate reality of some form. This is generally agreed upon. However, what the nature of that absolute truth is varies tremendously.

Some theorists favor a material realism which states that for something to be real, it must have material. This idea was a given in modern science, so much so that realism was often taken for granted to assume some type of material realism. However, there are a number of realists that believe some absolute truth (e.g., realism) is metaphysical in nature (e.g., nonmaterial).

Another complication to the idea of realism relates to the degree to which the absolute truth can be known. Many assume that if there is a realism it must be able to be known. Others will take a critical realism perspective in which they maintain some truth can be known or some truth can be known, but only in part. In this first instance, the realist may maintain that we can know some things such as physics; however, we can not know other absolutes such as morality. The second type of critical realist may state that we can partially know some things such as physics or gravity, but we can not fully know or understand even this. A third alternative is possible which combines these two types of critical realism. They may maintain, for example, that we can know some things for sure, such as physics, and other things only partially, such as morality, even though there is an absolute truth in both science and morality.

Types of Realism

The types of realisms are far to numerous to mention, but let me just mention a few which are most relevant to the modernism/postmodernism debate:

Material Realism – Though this language is generally not used, it refers to truth being located in what is material. This is generally implied in scientific realism, which is the more commonly used term.

Scientific Realism – Truth can be know through science. A belief that truth is held in the laws of physics and that which is material is generally assumed.

Moral Realism – There is an absolute moral or ethical truth which exists separate from culture.

Critical Realism – There is truth in some areas of knowledge and not others; or the belief that though there is an ultimate truth, it can never be fully known.

Modern versus Postmodern Realists

Modern realists tend to be more certain of our ability to obtain the ultimate truth which forms the basis of realism. Postmodern realists believe we are always limited in the degree to which we can know ultimate truth. Most postmodern realists believe we cannot fully know any ultimate truth, even one as seemingly basic as gravity. Even if we can predict gravity with 100% accuracy, we can not fully know and understand all the realities around this. Stated differently, we can never fully explain why gravity works the way it does. Prediction does not equal truth.

Modernism tends to believe in a stationary or unchanging truth; postmodernism varies. Postmodernists are more incline to believe that truth can change or evolve, at least in some domains. This is more an assumption about the nature of truth than anything else and it has particular significance for some religions. For example, this is related to the question of if God exists, can God change. Modern and premodern assumptions that truth are stable would state that if God exists, God does not change. Postmodernism is much more comfortable with a fluid or changing God.

Modernists tend to rely upon a singular method which is believed to be superior to obtain ultimate truth. This is generally science, though may also be reason or logic for some content domains. The method may change with the subject, but number of acceptable methodologies is greatly limited, generally to science, reason, and mathematics (which is often considered a form of reason or logic). Postmodernists believe multiple methodologies should be used in conjunction to better approximate truth. Any singular methodology is more susceptible to error or distortion.

Conclusion

Realism, simply put, is another way of talking about ultimate truth. The types of realism reflect different assumptions about the nature of truth. These assumptions about what can be truth and if we can obtain are at the heart of the debate between modernism and postmodernism.

          Critical psychology is a relatively unknown force in psychology, especially in the United States. Even many psychology professors have not heard of it or, if they have, do not know what it is about. Some of this is because psychologists don’t want to hear it. They don’t want to have to deal with the challenges of critical psychology.

Critical psychology is not so much a branch of psychology as a needed voice. According to Dennis Fox (n.d.), “critical psychology is an effort to challenge forces within mainstream psychology that help sustain unjust political, economic, and other societal structures.” Stated differently, critical psychology is concerned with how psychology often contributes to many of the injustices and oppressions still existing in contemporary culture.
Typically, psychology’s participation in oppression is unintentional and bound to the unconscious level. However, this does not make psychology innocent. Of all fields, psychology is the last that should be able to hide behind the excuse, “We didn’t realize.”
Similarly, postmodernism arose largely as a reaction against the power structures of modernism. It recognizes that current power structures served to protect those in power and reinforce systems that oppressed many. Postmodernism has set out to expose and overturn these oppressive forces.
Hillman and Ventura (1993) voice similar sentiments in their book We’ve Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy and the World’s Getting Worse. They are concerned that psychology always seeks to comfort, when sometimes it may be better, healthier, and more moral to encourage rage. There are things happening in the world that should anger us. We should be angry about racism. We should be angry about sexism. We should be angry about homophobia. We should be angry about terrorism, hate, and war. They are abominations. To replace the active rage against injustice with passive comfort is morally wrong.

Lessons from the History of Psychology
The history of psychology is filled with demons and shadows that are often not included in the history books. One of the most startling tales is Guthrie’s (2004) Even the Rat Was White. Guthrie details how the beginnings of empirical psychology received a great boost by research on individual differences. This research was often blatantly intended to prove the superiority of the white race. For example, when individuals of African decent performed better on measures of finger tapping quickness, it was interpreted as meaning that they were obviously designed for manual labor. These blatantly racist interpretations were considered good, objective science.
Similarly, Scarborough and Furmoto (1989) chronicle the history of ignored women in psychology in their book Untold Lives: The First Generation of American Woman Psychologists. Psychology for a long time has ignored important contributions of women. In a field where the vast majority of students are still women, most psychology organizations and psychology faculty are still dominated by males, particularly white males. Many psychological theories still base the model of health on a perspective biased in favor of white males.
We have made progress, but we still are in no place to pat ourselves on our back. Racist, sexism, and homophobia still exist in psychology, often blatantly so. As one example, it is not uncommon for an African American client, who voices anger about injustices, to be seen as pathological, aggressive, and even potentially anti-social. If we pathologize attempts to address these injustices, or many others in our culture, we only promote further injustice.

Lessons Needed in Contemporary Psychology
Psychology has too often become deluded with its insistence on objectivity and neutrality. Both of these are dangerous illusions. Psychological science is far from neutral. It seems hard to believe that in a postmodern, post-Kuhnian culture a discipline as significant as psychology could still buy into the objectivity of science, research, and empiricism. While the rest of the academy, even physics, the ‘hardest of all sciences,’ has moved beyond the modern paradigm, many in psychology are still trying to ‘prove’ the validity of psychology as a science.
Within psychology, those who promote a narrow, empirical perspective are often considered to be more sophisticated. This is the power position that will help you get ahead in the field. Yet, in the rest of the academy, a majority of the top scholars would quickly see through this thin veil.
A true psychology of compassion requires it to lose its innocence and embrace its shadow. Psychology has a dark side. Contemporary psychology still does not equally value all people and it does not seek to equally free all people. Too often, it seeks to promote a very white standard of health that is sold as being culturally sensitive or culturally competent. Yet these thin, idyllic caricatures don’t stand up. Sam Keen states,

The heroes and leaders toward peace in our time will be those men and women who have the courage to plunge into the darkness at the bottom of the personal and corporate psyche and face the enemy within. Depth psychology has presented us with the undeniable wisdom that the enemy is constructed from denied aspects of the self. (pp. 198-199).

Critical psychology is just such a tool to help psychology embrace its shadow and contribute in a meaningful way to challenge the oppressive forces which continue in our culture and the field of psychology.

Conclusion

Critical psychology and postmodernism are natural partners in contemporary psychology. Both seek to embrace diversity and pluralism in ways that go far beyond what is politically correct. These thick understandings of culture are needed if psychology truly is going to embrace its mission to compassionately help those who are suffering.

Additional References

Fox, D. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions: Critical psychology. Retrieved from http://www.dennisfox.net/faq.html.

Guthrie, R. V.. (2004). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Purchase here.

Hillman, J. & Venture, M. (1993). We’ve had a hundred years of psychotherapy and the world’s getting worse. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.

Keen, S. (1991). The enemy maker. In C. Zweig & J. Abrams (Eds.), Meeting the shadow: The hidden power of the dark side of human nature (pp. 197-202). New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Scarborough, E. & Furumoto, L. (1989). Untold lives: The first generation of American women psychologists. New York: Columbia University Press. Purchase here.

Added August, 2006
Never been updated