File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_1999/lyotard.9907, message 122


Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:07:20 -0400
From: "J. B. Sclisizzi" <jbs-AT-toronto.cbc.ca>
Subject: Re: reality check (was Das Capital)


Lois Shawver wrote:

> The field of therapy theory is a big, broad field, and unless you have
> studied it you just can't imagine how many different ways people "do
> therapy."

i'm not particulary interested in taking this discussion too far (my
interest in the topic has waned the last 15 or so years), but i don't think
that eclecticism represents a barrier.  the fact that you/we can refer to
the "field of therapy" suggests a common understanding of a delimited area
of practice and discourse -- even if the actual fixing of the borders of
that area is open to debate and continual modification.

but the field of therapy is not determined by the different therapeutic
models which one can enumerate.  structually, important commonalities do
exist.

and these include the exchange of money for service.  the presumption by the
client of a "need" for engaging in therapy.  the expectation/hope by the
client that the therapist can assist in the "satisfaction" of this need.
the expectation/hope by the client that the therapist possesses some
"knowledge" or "methodology" by which to assist the client.  the client's
"self-expression" within the therapeutic process (however this may be
actualized:  verbally, artistically, musically, dramatically, etc.).

these structural constituents unavoidably set up relations of power,
knowledge and language.  which is why all three become central to the
discussion and theorizing of the field of therapy ...

brent ...


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005