Therpeutic Techniques

Dr. Stien, I could use some input regarding my own therapeutic methods. I have been using basically the same techniques for over twenty five years with many and varied populations. My approach includes a mix of rational emotive, existential, and confrontive methodologies. The existential is primarily based on my readings of Martin Hiediger and Sartre in my late teens. In addition, I hold a high regard for Edvard Husserel (re. Phenomenology and the Crises in Modern Philosophy). Unlike many modern philosophers I have no difficulty with integrating the concepts of existentialism and phenomenology. I agree with the existentialists in that life, in part, is absurd but I also feel that life in total can be very meaningful. I like the discipline and enthuiasm of the phenomenologists (ref. Russel/Husserel) and I respect their attempts at addressing and understanding human condition. As applied, in treatment I put the focus on the decision making process of the individual. I expect the client to assume the responsibility for their own actions and to conceptualize their behavior as volitional. I expect the client to be in good faith with me as the therapist and with themselves as the prime mover. I work with the client, not on their bahalf ,on the goals that are set by her/him. The rational emotive piece works rather will in combination with the existential. I attempt to get a baseline as to the clients perception of the problem and their understanding of the circumstances impacting on the problem. As Ellis may have, I see no easy solutions here. Adjusting the client perception of the problem in itself does not necessarily lead toward solution. I feel that it often leads to more confusion (initially) and feelings of helplessness. I then fall back on the existential as a reaffirmation (absurdity/authenticity/good faith) and attempt to move the decision making process forward. I use the confrontive method ,mostly, to keep both the client and me on track. It also helps to clarify and serve as a guideline relative to the therpeutic process. I see little or no reason for the more non directive approaches for three reasons: time, money, and my personality. If a client is truely in need of more free zone therapy I usually refer them to another therapist. I have had above average to very good results with the tandem use of these three methods/approaches. I have worked with populations ranging from the heroin addicted to the institutionalized elderly (and most everybody in between). I guess what Concerns me the most is that I have not "updated" my approach for over twenty five years. Are these approaches antiquated or do they still apply? I must admit I have not stayed up with current approaches or new techniques that may have developed since my intense late adolescence. Finally, I often introduce humor (measured and with caution) with my clients in part to point out the absurdity of certain life situations and to facilatate decision making (reduce anxiety). Could you give em a vest pocket critique of my technique(oooh I rhymed). Any input would be strongly considered and appreciated. Thank you.

Replies:

Response to Your Request, by Henry Stein, 10/24/96 Thanks for your Response, by Ed Riemann, 10/25/96 To Dr. Stein, by Ed Riemann, 10/28/96 To Ed, by Henry Stein, 10/28/96

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.